Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MIDLAND METRO (No. 3) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Council Tax

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest information about the level of average household council tax bills.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): The average headline council tax per dwelling for the current year is £456–£30 less than the average headline community charge per dwelling for 1992–93.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister boasting that council tax bills in Labour areas would be £100 higher than the bills in Tory areas? Following further work on the figures, it has now been established that the council tax bill for Labour is £14 less than that for the Tories. Consequently, will the Minister congratulate Labour Sunderland on an average tax bill of £376, which is £65 lower than the average bill in the constituency of the Secretary of State in Tory-controlled Kent?

Mr. Redwood: It is interesting that Front-Bench Members now get others to do their dirty work for them. We all know that, on average, Labour bills are £100 or more higher for bands C and D across the country. [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. They are £107 more for every band C tax. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare individual constituencies and districts, he may like to compare Sunderland with Mole Valley. Sunderland has a band C tax of £534 whereas Mole Valley has a band C tax of £461. Mole Valley, of course, gets a fraction of the revenue support grant per head that Sunderland gets. Labour gets more grant and imposes higher taxes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help in making that point because, as he well knows, it is £100 more in Labour areas than in Tory areas.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend make a good job even better by encouraging local councils to settle appeals as quickly as possible and settle even more quickly those that fall out in favour of the customer?

Mr. Redwood: I agree. We want good management of local councils across the board and as management improves, so taxes can come down and services can improve. I am grateful for all good suggestions for improved management of local government. Opposition Members should listen carefully to some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friends. There are many excellent Conservative councils and I am sure that electors will reflect that on 6 May.

Mr. Straw: Has the Minister seen the excellent report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which blows apart his use of band C as a comparison between councils? Was not the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy right to endorse our use of average household bills and to say:
What will exercise people most is the bill they get through the door"?
Is it not a fact that, compared with Tory areas, Labour councils provide far better services, in Labour counties the rise in crime and the rise in unemployment have been less, the price of meals on wheels is 50 per cent. less and children have three times the chance of a nursery education and in Labour council areas, average household bills are £14 below the level of those in Tory areas? There are better services and better value from Labour.

Mr. Redwood: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman seeks to make an additional party political broadcast. We know that those claims are highly misleading. The truth is that Labour councils impose taxes of £100 more in bands C and D than do Conservative councils. The average council tax figure merely reflects the fact that Labour areas have far more low-rated properties than Conservative areas. Even Labour can just about get its band A tax below the average band D tax in Conservative areas. That is the magnitude of the gap between the two parties in office. Labour is charging £107 more for band C and £122 more for band D —the price of inefficiency and poor management.

County Councils

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average Government grant per head provided to Conservative-controlled county councils.

Mr. Redwood: The average amount of revenue support grant for Conservative-controlled county councils in 1993–94 is £222 per head. The average for Labour county councils is £274 per head—for around £100 per household more grant. Where, now, are the claims that Labour is disadvantaged and done down by the rate support grant settlement? In addition to Labour county councils charging £100 more in council tax, they receive an extra £100 per household in grant.

Mr. Ainsworth: In view of that answer, is it not even more remarkable that Conservative councils charge more than £100 less in respect of band C properties than Labour councils? Is it not a tragedy that Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the country have not yet learnt that what people want from their local council is the right service at the right price?

Mr. Redwood: That is clearly true, and I am sure that the electors will express their views on it on 6 May.


Conservative councils deliver better services at a lower price with less grant. That is the treble achievement of which my hon. Friends and I are rightly proud.

Mr. O'Hara: If Conservative councillors are so content with their standard spending assessments, will the Minister—as an hon. Member representing a Kent constituency—explain to me why that the mayor of Canterbury, Councillor Pat Burke, has wisely decided to apply for the Labour whip on Canterbury council? Does he agree with me that that was indeed a wise decision, and with the judgment of the Canterbury Gazette that, with the Liberal Democrats in disarray and the Tories of Canterbury moribund, he could have made no better decision?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman shows that the policies of Liberals and Labour on councils where they have some influence are similar. Conservative councillors up and down the country are doing a good job in delivering high-quality services at low cost. As I said, they obtain far less grant. Most of them are happy with the grant that they receive and do a good job within it. Some Conservative councillors would like more grant—that is understandable—and more grant is given to some Conservative councils as well as to Labour councils. As the figures show, however, it is the Labour councils which scoop the pool.

Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend spare a thought for my constituents in Fleetwood and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Opposition spokesman on the environment, in Labour-controlled Lancashire, whose council tax bills are £160 more on average than in Conservative-controlled Hampshire, even though Lancashire has a larger external grant? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that, notwithstanding that, the services that Lancashire provides result in primary school children in Fleetwood having to be taught in corridors?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend's excellent example bears out what has been said about the contrast between Conservative and Labour councils. When I went to Lancashire recently, I heard at first hand about the excessive expenditure on banquets and publicity and about the 133 committees that are considered necessary to run the council. I hope that there will soon be a Conservative authority that can cut down on the unnecessary spending and give value for money—just as Hampshire gives value for money under Conservative control.

Mr. Henderson: The House will understand that the Minister has felt bound today to wind up his arguments about local government now that the Conservative party is receiving its returns from the various counties around the country. However, does he not accept that his answer to Question 2 directly contradicts what he said in respect of Question 1? The reason Labour councils receive higher levels of grant is that generally they represent more deprived areas. Does the hon. Gentleman not also accept that there is great disquiet around the country because people recognise that the current system is completely discredited when Bournemouth is considered to be more deprived than Barnsley, when the mining area of Chester-le-Street is considered to be less deprived than Huntingdon and when Tory-controlled Kent county council receives £268 per head in grant compared with

£234 in Staffordshire? Will the Minister bring forward the results of the review quickly and stop the slanting in favour of Conservative authorities?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the exchanges so far today. I have made it very clear that Labour authorities are receiving the extra grant and they are imposing the extra taxes. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see the standard spending assessments and grants reviewed, will he make available Labour's evidence to our inquiry? I have asked him for that on many occasions, but I am still awaiting his testimony. I can only assume that Labour Members cannot agree among themselves on how they would like the system to be changed and they know full well that most Labour councils are benefiting greatly from it at the moment.

Sewage Treatment

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage treatment works failed their consent standards in 1986; and what is the equivalent figure now.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): Twenty-three per cent, of sewage treatment works failed to comply with their assessed standards in 1986. In 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, that figure had fallen to 6 per cent.

Miss Nicholson: I am delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's good news of the 17 per cent. rise in compliance with sewage treatment standards. However, he should know that my constituents are concerned about a sewage treatment plant which is not yet in existence. Can he assure me that if South West Water locates a sewage treatment plant at Northam in my constituency, that plant will reach the highest possible standards? My constituents do not believe that it will.

Mr. Howard: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. She has drawn them to the attention of my Department. If the proposal does not meet adequate standards, it will not receive consent. In addition, all the environmental implications of the proposal will be fully taken into account before any decision is made.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister comment on a recent survey by The Sunday Times of convictions for water pollution during 1992 which showed that five of the top 10 offenders were water authorities, with, I regret to say, Welsh Water at the top of that list of offenders? Is it not a sad commentary on the Government's environmental record that in the recent National Rivers Authority survey our rivers were found, for the first time, to be in a worse state in 1990 than in 1980? Would it not be much wiser if the money from our massively increased water bills were used for environmental improvements rather than for buying hotels, increasing chairmen's salaries and providing big dividends for shareholders?

Mr. Howard: Our water bills finance the investment in improved water quality in which I thought the hon. Gentleman was interested. One cannot, at one and the same time, complain about standards and also complain about the bills that are necessary if standards are to be


improved. Prosecutions simply demonstrate that the NRA is determined to be even-handed in its approach to securing observance of the law.

Departmental Buildings

Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the future of the Department of the Environment and Department of Transport buildings in Marsham street; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): No. 2 Marsham street will be demolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah".]—as soon as possible when alternative accommodation has been identified and is available.

Sir Roger Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department of the Environment building is one of the few buildings that actually looks better when it is covered with scaffolding and dust sheets and that the sooner it comes down, the better the environment will be? However, the important question is whether we will be mean minded or far sighted and imaginative about the use of that six acre site at the heart of the capital. Is my hon. Friend aware of the competition launced by Building Design and the comments of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the use of that site? Will he persuade his right hon. Friends to accept that we do not want more an more offices built on the site and that we want the site to be used imaginatively with the possibility of public open space or other forms of public benefit?

Mr. Baldry: One of the advantages of being an Environment Minister is that, looking out of the window of the building, one does not have to see the Department of the Environment.
Clearly, the site is important, and we will give careful consideration to the idea of a design competition. We want to ensure that the building that replaces 2 Marsham street is not merely better than what we have now—that will not be difficult—but a building of which we can be proud, on architectural and aesthetic grounds, for many years to come.

Mr. Skinner: Will the many people who work at the Departments of the Environment and of Transport be compensated for any move that takes place? Is the Minister aware that the trade unions involved are very anxious to remain on the site? Why should they be kicked out at the whim of the Government, who are almost certainly hellbent on lining some developer's back pocket, while at the same time bailing out the developers at Canary wharf?

Mr. Baldry: That is a pretty drivelly question, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards. The staff with whom we work at Marsham street are consulted closely and kept in touch with information about where the new building is to be. We are as anxious as they are to move to a decent working environment. A building that is likely to fall down in the next two years is not the best place in which to work.

East Thames Corridor

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him following the recent announcement of his policy towards the east Thames corridor; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction (Sir George Young): The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 24 March have been broadly welcomed as both imaginative and realistic. We continue to receive representations on them from a wide range of bodies.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will know that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I welcome the concept of the east Thames corridor with enthusiasm. It will involve the creation of 128,000 new dwellings and 182,000 new jobs by the year 2015. Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that he will engage in proper consultation with local authorities at all levels, and with local communities, when the project moves into its development stage?

Sir George Young: A few days ago, I chaired a meeting of all the 16 local authorities involved in the east Thames corridor project. That meeting was very helpful and productive, and my officials and I now plan to hold further meetings with the local authorities—both elected councillors and officials—that are co-operating with the imaginative proposals for the corridor.

Mr. Mackinlay: I recognise the great potential of the east Thames corridor for recreation, commerce and residential use. Does the Minister appreciate, however, that the glossy documents that were produced a few weeks ago were considered cosmetic and cynical in my constituency, given the high unemployment in Kent and Essex? What new moneys will be spent to promote jobs and commercial opportunities and how will the homes be built? Does not the Minister realise that acres of planning permissions exist for residential properties? What is lacking is confidence among potential home buyers and opportunites for local authorities to build homes in which they can house families, thus reducing their waiting lists.

Sir George Young: Confidence is returning by the day. Private developers will be interested in developing the sites in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for both homes and jobs.
I do not recall the representative from the hon. Gentleman's local authority describing the proposals as cosmetic or cynical at the meeting that I chaired. All the local authorities that attended that meeting wanted to work with the Government in unlocking the potential of the east Thames corridor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his approach to the proposals: his constituents can gain real benefit from working with the Government to unlock that potential.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware that nowhere has the announcement of the east Thames corridor been more strongly welcomed than in the London borough of Havering, represented in Parliament by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and myself? Will he undertake to give every encouragement to the Havering Riverside project launched yesterday, which


invites private investment in what will be a key site in the Thames corridor? If there is to be an international station at Rainham, bringing Paris and Brussels within two hours' travelling time, it will also be a major gateway to Europe.

Sir George Young: I am heartened to hear from my hon. Friend about the proposals for further investment in the east Thames corridor. I will indeed take an interest in the scheme that he mentioned. Within the constraints applying to a planning Minister, which I am sure that he understands, I will ensure that my Department gives the planners every assistance in bringing the scheme forward.

Toxic Waste

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the importation of toxic waste into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howard: I have had representations from hon. Members, the waste industry, environmental and other organisations and members of the public.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that people in south Wales are asking, "Why should we have this toxic waste dumped on our doorstep?"? Surely, a sophisticated country such as Germany should be able to deal with its own waste. The Minister will be aware that south Wales has suffered enough from pollution, with coal tips galore, the horrors of Aberfan and so on. May I make a plea to the Secretary of State? Will he do whatever he can to prevent the insidious American concern Browning Ferris from establishing a waste disposal plant in Newport?

Mr. Howard: The House will find the hon. Gentleman's comments about coal tips rather odd in the light of the views that have recently been expressed, particularly by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps referring to a shipment of toxic waste from Germany that was recently the subject of comment in the media. He will know that I have made representations to the German Environment Minister asking him to place a ban on the exportation of that shipment to Britain. The shipment has not left Germany and I hope that my representations will have the desired effect, which I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I strongly endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to self-sufficiency for developed countries. Does that not also mean that those developed countries should take a responsible attitude to international trade? For example, how much longer can we tolerate the fact that German legislation is undermining the recycling industry in the United Kingdom by ensuring that dumped material undercuts anything that can be generated in the United Kingdom market?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the consequences of that element of German legislation. I have made representations on that matter as well to the German Environment Minister, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made representations to the European Commission. The matter needs to be dealt with and my right hon. Friend and I are considering urgently what action we can take.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State come clean about the Government's attitude to the international trade in toxic waste? He has made it clear, and I support him, that he feels it appropriate to make representations on occasions to other Governments to prevent the import of toxic waste into Britain. Is he aware that our reputation is severely harmed when he and the Government take no action to prevent the export of toxic waste, particularly to developing countries such as Mexico? It does Britain no good continually to be seen as the dirty exporter of Europe.

Mr. Howard: The most significant step forward in the European Community in recent years is the waste shipment regulation, which was agreed under the United Kingdom presidency in the second half of last year. It resulted from a United Kingdom initiative started by my predecessor, now the Governor of Hong Kong. We have consistently taken the lead in encouraging our partners in Europe to pursue effective policies on the export of toxic waste.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend think carefully before rejecting any work that may come to Britain through recycling of toxic waste? Does he agree that there is surely a dichotomy in the Opposition's attitude? We hear lectures all the time from Opposition Members about recycling things. When we perhaps recycle nuclear fuel, the Opposition criticise us for doing so and making billions of pounds and creating hundreds of jobs in the process.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the internal inconsistencies in the attitudes of Labour Members. This is not the only issue on which we see that. My hon. Friend will know that I am awaiting the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in relation to the THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—application, and therefore I am sure that he would not expect me to say anything about that matter at this stage.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that from May of next year it will be possible and legal for the United Kingdom to ban the import of toxic waste from developed countries. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House a firm and unequivocal commitment that he will take action to do so? The Minister for the Environment and Countryside has appeared to indicate that he will take such action and, at different times, that he will not, while the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Lord Strathclyde, has talked simply of reducing toxic waste imports rather than banning them. Will the Secretary of State ban toxic waste imports into this country from developed countries from May of next year?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the situation. We have every intention of implementing the regulation agreed last year on the due date, May 1994. Indeed, we pressed the Community to fix an earlier date for the implementation of the legislation, but we were unable to persuade our partners in Europe to achieve an earlier date.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that the regulation does not provide for a complete ban, but provides for those countries that cannot economically make provision for their own recycling to be able to export small quantities


of waste. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are obliged by that aspect of the legislation as well as by the rest of it.

House Purchase

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were purchased under the special package announced in the autumn statement.

Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have now been brought into use by the housing package announced in the autumn statement.

Sir George Young: Housing associations have purchased some 18,000 additional homes in England using the £577 million allocated for this purpose in the autumn statement. This is a very great achievement, exceeding by 2,000 the target of 16,000 homes set in November. I congratulate heartily the Housing Corporation and the 81 associations involved. Purchases have been widely spread across the country, with acquisitions in some 97 per cent. of local authority areas. Grants to local authority and housing association tenants have enabled some 3,300 to become owner-occupiers, freeing their current homes for those in need. So, overall, the package has provided more than 21,000 permanent new homes for families in England.

Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that a number of other developments have enormously enhanced the value of that package, not least the considerable fall in interest rates?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend rightly points out that there have been significant improvements in the housing market, working with the grain of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement. My hon. Friend will know that building societies' net advances were up 40 per cent. in March compared with February and that new lending commitments, at more than £3 billion, were double the January level. So there is every sign that the autumn statement package was effective in restoring confidence in the housing market.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still far more empty houses than there are homeless families? Does he further agree that the way in which to provide housing for those who need it is to bring those empty houses into use and not to cover our green fields and gardens with more buildings?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some 60,000 families in temporary accommodation and some 600,000 properties empty, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point. This Administration have taken steps to bring into use many of those empty properties. We have introduced a scheme, using housing associations as managing agents, to persuade the owners of those empty properties to bring them back into use and to rent them to those in need. We are also developing proposals to continue the revival of the private rented sector, to which the Government attach particular importance.

Mr. George Howarth: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the Rowntree report, which suggests that the estates that are being bought up for this purpose

are in danger of turning into ghettos of the 1960s and 1970s style? If the Minister has studied the report, does he have any proposals to stop that happening? I hope that he agrees that it would not be in the interests of anybody to re-create that type of problem.

Sir George Young: I have read the very interesting report published last week by Rowntree. The hon. Member will know that housing associations do not, by and large, develop large estates. The average size of a housing association development is about 20. The report, however, acts as a useful warning to housing associations that may be looking at the larger schemes that there are management problems that could go with them. In practice, most housing association schemes on large sites are already broken down into smaller sites operated by different housing associations, so there is diversity of tenure and of management on the large estates where housing associations are active.

Mr. Gerrard: While I welcome the fact that money is being spent on housing, does the Minister accept that, in London at least, the impact of this package on both the housing market and family homelessness has been very limited? In the main, the money has gone on buying newly built properties—only 5 per cent. have been repossessions—and mainly one-bedroomed flats rather than family housing. Will the Minister look again at whether more money can be spent by both housing associations and local authorities to buy family housing, so that we can start to do something about the growing number of families in London who are in temporary accommodation?

Sir George Young: The hon. Member will find that the package was focused on two-bedroomed properties rather than one-bedroomed homes. In my constituency, the London borough of Ealing has been able to end the use of bed and breakfast. Only one person is now left in bed and breakfast, who is there voluntarily. Part of the reason why the council has been able to do that is the use of the autumn statement package to take people out of bed and breakfast and move them into homes acquired under that package. I think that the hon. Member will find that London has benefited from the package. There has been a 38 per cent. fall in bed and breakfast over the past year, and I would expect to find that improvement maintained when we have the next figures in a few weeks' time, which will show the full impact of the package.

Housing Association Homes

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association homes he expects to be made available in 1992–93.

Sir George Young: A final figure for completions is not yet available. However, the Housing Corporation estimates that at least 80,000 units, including some 6,000 funded through local authority housing association grant, will have been made available by housing associations in 1992–93. This is not far short of double the corporation's forecast of 43,400 units when the programme for 1992–93 was announced—thanks to the housing market package and to the excellent value for money which has been achieved by housing associations.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent working relationship between the Conservative-controlled


St. Edmundsbury borough council and the 14 housing associations in my constituency? Will he agree with me that this excellent working and organisational relationship has been of benefit by reducing waiting lists and virtually doing away with difficulties for families needing bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he also agree with me that this excellent record contrasts markedly with the appalling housing record of so many Labour local authorities that have blighted the lives of so many thousands of our fellow citizens?

Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I recently visited his constituency and met the hard-working local councillors in charge of housing policy. I welcome the way in which they have embraced their enabling role and are developing good relationships with housing associations. I also welcome the way in which they are working with my Department on an estate action scheme in Haverhill in the same district. My hon. Friend's local authority is a model of what more local authorities should do to make faster progress in tackling their housing problems.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister tell the House what representations he has made to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the 9,291 empty Ministry of Defence properties throughout the country, 527 of them in my constituency of Plymouth, which is 21 per cent. of the total MOD stock there? Would he care to congratulate Plymouth city council on having less than 0·75 per cent. of its houses void at a time when many people are homeless in the city? What representations has he made about empty MOD properties?

Sir George Young: The hon. Member will know that after the last election we set up a task force, chaired by John Baker, precisely to deal with the issue that he has raised. He will also know that the Ministry of Defence is bringing back to this country large numbers of service families who will need accommodation when they get here. The MOD is leasing property to housing associations and local authorities. It is disposing of surplus stock and giving cash grants to service men leaving the armed forces; they can use that money to buy some of the surplus stock.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the MOD is anxious to reduce the number of surplus properties that it owns.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £2·7 billion worth of new lending by building societies in February clearly shows that it is not just Ministers who believe that now is a good time to buy a new home?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The indicators, some of which I mentioned a moment ago, show that that is so. Abbey National reported that its mortgage approvals in the first quarter of the current year were 60 per cent. up on those in the same quarter last year. Many people are taking the view that this is, indeed, a good time to buy a home.

Mr. Pike: The Minister referred to the number of homes that will become available, but does he recognise that there is a real problem with the rent levels—a problem underlined by the housing associations' campaign on affordability? More than 81 per cent. of housing association tenants now need housing benefits. Are not

housing association rents far too high, and is it not time the Government did something to get those rents down, so that people can afford to pay them?

Sir George Young: I cannot agree that average housing association rents are too high. The average rent is about £40 a week. In my view, that is a reasonable figure. I am aware of the sensitivity of the housing associations about this matter. The subject engaged the attention of the Environment Select Committee for some time when I appeared before it last week, and I await its report with interest. But the hon. Gentleman must accept that by reducing the rate of grants from 72 per cent. last year to 67 per cent. this year, we have achieved an extra 3,300 homes for those in need without any increase in the implied rent, because of the fall in interest rates and in land values. One has to strike a balance between rent levels and the output of new homes, and I think that we have got the balance about right.

Mr. James Hill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great efforts that he is making to provide more tenancies. Does he agree that a survey of our cities would show up a flaw, however, in that some of the boarded-up houses that are not owned by anyone in particular are not the sort of houses that housing associations want? Is it not possible to direct the housing associations to go for houses that need maintenance but will then provide housing units, instead of the simple solution of buying new build?

Sir George Young: I entirely agree. I am anxious to re-focus the energy of the housing association movement on the inner cities, where many of them started. That is why I have told the Housing Corporation that I should like 18 per cent. of this year's budget to go towards rehabilitation and improvement. We are also conducting research to find out what is impeding the housing associations' attempts to do more work.
There is, of course, an important planning role. The more boarded-up homes that can be brought back into use, the less pressure there will be for development on green-field sites. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to protect those sites if we can.

Urban Policies

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of his urban policies.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The Government's urban policies are encouraging investment and improving the quality of life in our major cities through partnership and competition. The hon. Member will, I know, welcome the fact that over £400 million in targeted urban resources has gone into Manchester in the period 1990–93 alone.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that phasing out the urban programme will cost us about 3,400 jobs and about 12,000 training places? Is he further aware that the town hall has spent about £100,000 on tendering that has been aborted as a result of Government cancellations? The voluntary organisations are being devastated in the city at the same time—a time when the Prime Minister has visited Manchester to back the Olympic bid, saying that he wants to revitalise the city.

Mr. Squire: Against the background of the Department of the Environment's urban block programme this year of £1,000 million, it is a little perverse of the hon. Gentleman to concentrate entirely on the urban programme. For the record, this year Manchester will get some £9 million from the urban programme and, of course, the council has the freedom to spend all its capital receipts as it wishes. In addition, Manchester has two development corporations, an excellent city challenge, one task force, substantial housing investment, use of derelict land grant and the prospect of substantial investment from the Olympics in the year 2000. Most hon. Members would be delighted to get such a package.

Mr. Knapman: In the areas that have large numbers of empty houses, can my hon. Friend discern a pattern between the scale of the problem and the political complexion of the councils in those areas?

Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I understand from my housing colleagues in the Department that there is often a sad correlation between the number of housing voids and the fact that a council is under Labour control. I hope that electors in the forthcoming county elections will bear that in mind.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister recall telling local authority leaders in November that he would review the list of urban programme authorities in the new year, using the 1991 census? Will he explain why the consultation paper arrived only in April, four months after it was promised, and why local authorities have been given only weeks to respond to a very important area of policy? Is not it the case that the delay in publishing this document is a result of the Minister's desire to manipulate the criteria for political ends and to provide excuses for his savage cuts in inner-city aid?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my earlier answer. I agree with him only on the importance of this programme. There is no delay. Matters are on target. It takes a little time to incorporate the entire results from the 1991 census, which will rightly guide us in this review. We have consulted local authorities, as I assume the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do, and we shall produce our final proposals later this year. The hon. Gentleman should not worry, because we are on target and our advice will be the best possible and will be triggered by the latest possible information.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that recreation and leisure areas and parkland are vital to urban areas? The question is not just about the urban programme and allied policies but about urban policies in general. The inspectorate of his Department often appears only too ready to grant planning permission to public bodies such as health authorities that are seeking to develop vital and important open areas within centres such as the borough and town of Macclesfield. Such areas are vital for recreation and as parkland, and they enhance the environment of our town centres. Will my hon. Friend seek to prevail upon his inspectorate and direct his attention to these vital policies? We do not want every area of green within cities to be covered by housing.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction has heard my hon. Friend's question and has confirmed to me that the latest

document, PPG17, specifically addresses that point. I agree with my hon. Friend on the wider issue of the importance of recreation. Hon. Members from Sheffield or near Sheffield will know about the substantial work by the development corporation there which is transforming old, derelict areas into excellent open spaces for recreation.

Council Tax

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average level of the council tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redwood: The average headline council tax for two or more adults in a band C dwelling in England is £506.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister will be aware of major demonstrations against council tax levels which took place in the Western Isles. Is he aware that even after the cuts in council tax that followed, which will clearly have a significant implication for services in the islands, someone in a £40,000 house in the Western Isles will still pay £110 more than someone in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon? Does the Minister think that the surcharge that the Western Isles are paying over Huntingdon is reasonable, equitable, just and defensible, or does he think that it means that Huntingdon is getting too much public support and that the Western Isles is getting too little?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is badly misinformed about the relative levels of grant support. Scottish authorities receive £1,013 per head in external support—47 per cent. more than English local authorities, which receive £689 a head. Even allowing for some difference in functions, that is a big increase over the English figure. The hon. Gentleman should take up his argument in Scottish Question Time, and with those who are trying to lead the Western Isles council. The electors in the Western Isles knew where to lay the blame. They knew that it lay with the council, which is beginning to respond.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister confirm that not only is band C council tax £107 more under Labour authorities than it is under Conservative authorities, but that the 10 highest council taxes have all been set by Labour authorities? Does he agree that this is no mere coincidence, but compelling evidence that Labour authorities are profligate spenders and that value for money is an alien concept to them?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. All 10 of the highest English council tax rates have been set by Labour local authorities. Practically every one of those authorities not only gets more grant than the average but, in most cases, gets massively more than the average because the Government recognise some special factors. However, the councillors are not able to use all the extra money to the benefit of their local taxpayers and provide good-quality services.

Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that of the 1,800 inquiries received by Darlington council about the disabled persons reduction scheme, 1,500 came from people placed in band A? Does he recognise that his refusal to extend the scheme to those living in band A properties short changes those who are in most need of assistance to pay their bills? Will he consider introducing a new council


tax band of A minus to assist my constituents and those of other hon. Members who, through no fault of their own, are losing out?

Mr. Redwood: The idea of disablement relief on houses in different council tax banks is that it should come into operation where a disabled person has had to spend extra on improving the house to cope with the disability. For those on low incomes, who are already rated in the lowest band, there are many other ways in which they can get help, such as through disability benefit and council tax benefit. We wish to ensure that people on low incomes are not penalised, and there is a generous scheme to do that. If the issue is whether somebody has been put into a higher band by virtue of the disability, that element in help for disabled people can be given only to those in the higher band. Like Opposition Members, I wish to help the disabled. That is why we have a series of measures to help them, geared to income and house values.

Bathing Water Quality

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters were designated by Her Majesty's Government for the purposes of the 1975 EC bathing waters directive by May 1979.

Mr. Howard: No bathing waters had been identified by May 1979 as within the scope of the bathing waters directive.

Mr. Brown: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the position has changed, although Cleethorpes is not yet up to standard? Perhaps he might like to consider taking one of his holidays in Cleethorpes. The Prime Minister has already said, in a reply to me earlier this year, that he hopes to visit Cleethorpes. Can my right hon. and learned Friend, if he comes to Cleethorpes, hold out the prospect that, by 1995, there is every probability that our beaches will be able to hold their own with the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he also confirm that, this year, Cleethorpes expects to receive the greatest number of tourists ever? Clean beaches would put the icing on the cake of that great tourist achievement.

Mr. Howard: I very much look forward to visiting Cleethorpes, although my hon. Friend has a somewhat exaggerated notion of the number of holidays that I take during the year. I can confirm that we expect the bathing beaches of Cleethorpes fully to meet the standards of the European bathing waters directive by 1995. I am delighted to hear what he has told me about the number of tourists that Cleethorpes intends to entertain over the summer and I am sure that they will benefit from all the facilities that the resort has to offer.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is unreasonable for funding for the kind of environmental improvements covered by the directive to be provided in such a way as to have a terrible effect on water bills, with the impact that has on low-income families? Would not it be reasonable for at least some of that funding to come from the public purse? Is such funding already given or would it be possible?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the resources for the public purse come from his constituents, just as much as the money for the bills that they have to

pay for improved water systems. It is no use the hon. Gentleman or other Opposition Members proclaiming the need for higher standards without being prepared to make available the resources necessary if those standards are to be achieved.

Mr. Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Torbay enjoys the cleanest beaches and quite the best bathing water in the country. Is he aware also that a large burden is placed on South West Water chargepayers, who are obliged to pay for what is, in effect, a national asset? Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly visit Torbay this summer, swim in our water, and then examine our water charges?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to all hon. Friends who want me to spend an ever-increasing number of holidays in their constituencies. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks about the excellent quality of Torbay's beaches, and I know of, and have some sympathy with, his concerns about the level of bills in the south-west. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated recently that we are examining those matters.

Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that of interest is not whether he is willing to visit Cleethorpes but whether he is willing to swim there—and whether he is worried that he might be swimming in sewage? That is the issue of concern to people throughout the country. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any plans to enforce the directive's guidelines, rather than just its minimum standards? There is evidence that enforcing only the minimum standards still leads to sickness caused by sewage problems. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Britain's 400 designated areas will reach the minimum standard by 1995 or will he renege on that standard? Does he agree with the Marine Conservation Society that it would be reasonable to ask the big 10 privatised water companies to reduce their returns to shareholders, to achieve decent minimum bathing standards?

Mr. Howard: I am not persuaded that the present mandatory—not minimum—standards are in any way inadequate to provide the quality of bathing beaches that we require. We are making excellent progress. Very few of our bathing beaches no longer reach the standard, and I hope that they will all meet it in 1995. Perhaps the hon. Lady will come with me to Cleethorpes.

Council Tax

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities with the highest level of council tax.

Mr. Redwood: The 10 local authorities in England with the highest average headline council taxes are as follows. I give the band C values, but at all levels they are the highest. Harlow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour"]—£878; Newcastle upon Tyne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]— £704; Greenwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£696; Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£656; Haringey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£646; Liverpool —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£645; Camden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£638; North Tyneside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£628; Salford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£628; and Derwentside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£626.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that revealing answer. Will he be kind enough to name the 10 local authorities having the lowest levels of council tax?

Mr. Redwood: Without prior notice, that could be difficult, but I have a list that I prepared earlier for my hon. Friend. There is Wellingborough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Conservative."]—there is.—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am looking at the clock. We must speed up.

Mr. Redwood: There are also Westminster, Isles of Scilly, City of London. Hambleton, Hinckley and Bosworth, Huntingdon, Basingstoke and Deane, South Cambridgeshire and Fareham.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that according to his own Department's figures for average household bills, there are twice as many Tory councils as Labour councils in the 50 most expensive areas and that among the 50 least

expensive areas for average bills there are twice as many Labour as Tory councils, including Southampton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Lincoln—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Stoke-on-Trent —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Corby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Great Yarmouth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Bradford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Plymouth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—York—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Slough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—and Norwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—all with bills way below the average Tory bill of £465. It is Labour which serves us better and costs us less.

Mr. Redwood: In any band that we care to choose, Labour costs us more and Conservatives cost us less. The hon. Gentleman has not understood that point, after a long session today, but we are going to go on saying it all the way up to 6 May, because it is the truth and the voters will respond.

Points of Order

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question has been raised before, in general terms, about the transfer of written questions to individuals, writing on behalf of a particular executive agency.
What concerns me is that I asked a question of the Chairman of the Catering Committee—which, as you will appreciate, is not an executive agency—and it was transferred to the director of catering services. I ask you to discourage that practice, particularly as the question was about what appears to be the theft of a large quantity of cutlery and silverware. It concerns you particularly, Madam Speaker, because it carries the portcullis, the insignia of the House of Commons. That was not removed before this cutlery ended up on sale in the United States, apparently in considerable quantities.
I understand that the Catering Department managed to get the sum of £109 in scrap value from the sale of some of the items. Knives, forks, spoons, milk jugs, cream jugs, teapots and a range of items are on sale from an American firm. For example, a meat dish is on sale at roughly £250.
This is a matter of considerable importance which the Chairman of the Catering Committee—I notified him that I intended to raise this point of order with you—has shuffled off on to the director of catering services. A matter that concerns both you, regarding the control of the Portcullis and the disposal of these items, should, it seems to me, have been dealt with by the Chairman of the appropriate Committee.

Madam Speaker: The House, I am sure, knows that I do not believe everything that I read in the press. However, I did believe one item that I was told about—that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had tabled a question for answer by the Chairman of the Catering Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter with me, I shall certainly raise it with the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Every morning, Monday to Thursday, as you know, about 2,000 people come through the House of Commons on the Line of Route. This morning, information was passed to me that a considerable number of people who follow the Line of Route would be barred from doing so. I made inquiries and found that one of these Common Market Presidents was due to come here, the one from Portugal.
Frankly, I think that it is totally and utterly wrong that people who, in some cases, have travelled 300 or 400 miles to London to visit the House of Commons should be barred from the Line of Route just to allow the President of Portugal to come into the Chamber on his own, irrespective of who was responsible for the invitation. People talk about the classless society in this place, but today's example shows that it is as far away as ever.

Madam Speaker: I am aware that the President of Portugal visited the House this morning and I am proud that he did so. I understand that he was invited to view the Chamber by an hon. Member. In deference to the visit of a Head of State, and on grounds of security, the admission of visitors to the Chamber was delayed by some five minutes. I am content with the arrangements that were made.

Adoption Leave Arrangements

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them; to make provision for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down; and for connected purposes.
I welcome this opportunity to bring the Bill before the House. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to confer employment rights on adoptive mothers similar to those rights enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them. It would also provide for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down.
It seems extraordinary in this day and age, when we have made great progress in recognising the role that women play as mothers, that we should still sustain in our system an inequality against families who provide a home for a child through adoption. At present, adoptive parents do not have the statutory right to return to their jobs after taking a break to care for a new addition to their family. Nor do they receive any statutory payment during any such absence, even though they may well have paid the same national insurance contributions as those who have children born to them, and should thus have access to such entitlements.
I believe that it is the role of Parliament not only to legislate for the majority of its citizens but to revisit legislation and collect those groups of people which it may have missed. In this case, adoptive parents are missed, and are missing out.
In preparing the Bill, I have received tremendous support from Jill White and British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. I pay tribute to the work they do and the way in which they take up issues on behalf of families seeking to adopt children.
Adopters provide a tremendous service not only to the children they adopt but to the country as a whole. In many instances, the financial burden of raising a child may have fallen on the state. An adoptive parent takes financial responsibility for that child, thus saving the taxpayer money, but, more importantly, no one can disagree that a child raised within a family circle and having the stability of a warm and loving home has a much better start in life than a child who does not have that opportunity. Therefore, an adoptive parent makes an invaluable contribution to the welfare of an individual child and, ultimately, to that child's chances in life—something on which we cannot put a price.
The demands made on a family by the arrival of a new child are similar for birth parents and adoptive parents. In fact, parents who are accepted for adoption may find that their child arrives at very short notice. Like any other child being born into a family, an adopted child needs to spend time with its new parents, especially during the first few weeks when the bonding is established between parents and child. Why should we omit adoptive parents from the protective legislation afforded to birth mothers? There is no good reason for doing so.
I consider this to be not a political issue but one of common sense. That is why, in presenting the Bill to the

House, I have been supported not only by members of my own party but by members of the Opposition. I am very grateful to all supporters of the Bill.
The Bill would confer the same entitlements on adoptive mothers as on birth mothers, with the proviso that a prospective adopter must inform her employer in writing, first, of her and her family's approval as prospective adopters, and, secondly, as soon as is practicably possible, of the impending placement for adoption once a child has become available.
The Bill would give an adoptive mother the same right to return to work as a birth mother, and it seeks to extend the rights provided by the Employment Protection (Consolidated) Act 1978 by substituting the words "adoption leave" for the words "maternity leave" and the words "placement for adoption" for "pregnancy and childbirth".
Introducing the same legislation for adopters as for natural mothers would also have benefits for employers, who, unless they have special arrangements, now risk losing valuable trained staff. Individuals who have passed through the necessary screening procedure to be accepted as potential adoptive parents are usually among the most reliable and responsible members of our society, yet we put them in a position in which they may even have to choose between their jobs and adopting a child. I have not sought to restrict the provisions of the Bill with an age limit for the child, because that would be a matter for deliberation in Committee.
I shall give the House an example involving a constituent of mine, a general practitioner, who, together with her husband, has been approved by the local social services department for adopting a baby. She would like to take leave from her partnership when a baby becomes available, and her partners support her. She hoped that she would be eligible for the 13 weeks of locum payments from the family health services authority, in line with its usual practice on maternity leave for birth mothers. But her application was rejected, and she is pursuing the matter with the relevant authorities, now with my help and support. She feels—I agree with her, and I am sure that every Member of the House will also agree—that it is discriminatory to prevent her from experiencing motherhood without having to pay a penalty.
The adoption agency rightly requires that the adoptive mother be absent from work after receiving the adopted child so that she can spend time with that child. Failure to agree to that condition would disqualify her from being an adoptive parent. So if she wishes to continue to be available to adopt, she is faced with some pretty tough decisions about her livelihood.
My Bill seeks to deal with just such cases and to relieve the stress and strain of the uncertainties in that area—uncertainties that arise as a direct result of a lacuna in the legislation. Many letters received by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering reflect that uncertainty. Some employers seem willing to grant adoption leave; others do not. Potential adoptive parents are unsure about their position in law and often ask for clarification, only to be told that they have no rights.
That area of law is in urgent need of review, so I hope that the Minister will consider my Bill carefully. If we cannot make progress with this ten-minute Bill, I sincerely hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to produce amending legislation to end the additional burden and uncertainty for a group of people who provide a wonderful


start for so many of our youngsters, and who surely deserve at least the same protection as that afforded by our laws to a natural parent. Let us really level that playing field for our adopted children and their parents.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Joyce Quin, Mr. John Sykes and Mr. Richard Spring.

ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS

Ms Cheryl Gillan accordingly presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them; to make provision for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 May, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

Orders of the Day — National Lottery etc. Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

New clause 7

ANNUAL REPORTS BY DISTRIBUTING BODIES OTHER THAN MILLENNIUM COMMISSION

'.—(1) As soon as possible after the end of every financial year, each body that in that year was paid any money under section 22 or distributed or applied any money under section 23 shall make a report to the Secretary of State on the exercise during that year of its functions under this Act.

(2) The report shall set out any directions given to the body under section 24 that had effect during the financial year to which the report relates.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section before Parliament.

(4) This section does not apply to the Millennium Commission.'.—[Mr. Key.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following: Government new clause 8—Accounts of distributing bodies other than Charities Board and Millennium Commission.

Amendment No. 26: in clause 23, page 10, line 18 at end insert—
'() A body shall report to the Secretary of State each year on the distribution under subsection (1) which it has made during that year.'.

Government amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71.

Mr. Key: It is a great pleasure to come back to the Floor of the House with the Bill. It is quite rare for a Bill to have been so amended in Committee. It gives me pleasure to say that, because we have been engaged on an important piece of legislation in creating the first national lottery in this country this century, and we have been determined to get it right. We have listened to representations from all parts of the political spectrum and from all interest groups that are involved or that might be affected. I have no doubt that the Bill today is better than the Bill on which we embarked in Committee some weeks ago. I thank all members of the Committee who made that possible. It was a constructive Committee and we had the benefit of a great deal of advice from beyond the Committee.
In Committee, I undertook to consider ways in which to ensure transparency of accounting for lottery funds. The new clauses would ensure that Parliament would be able to see clearly exactly how all funds from the lottery had been spent. Amendment No. 26 is intended to ensure the same. As our new clauses and amendments meet, I hope, the intention of amendment No. 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I hope that she will accept new clause 7 and the other amendments and that she will withdraw her own.
The reason why I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment No. 26 is that the Millennium Commission is likely to have as one of its members the Secretary of State, so it would not be appropriate for the commission's report to he submitted to him before being laid before Parliament. I hope that the hon. Members who tabled amendment No. 26 will accept that our new clauses and amendments would meet their purpose.

Mr. John Maxton: I know that in legislation the term "Secretary of State" is a generic term to cover all Secretaries of State. Where the new clause uses the words "Secretary of State" in terms of reporting for the Scottish Arts Council and for the Scottish Sports Council, does it mean the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Secretary of State for National Heritage?

Mr. Key: It would be the Secretary of State for National Heritage, because it is our lottery.

Mr. Maxton: I find that a slightly odd reply in relation to Scotland. It is clear that the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sports Council come under the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are his responsibility, he appoints them, and they report on all other matters to him. I do not, therefore, understand why the Minister says that on the issue only of the spending of national lottery money, the report will go to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. That seems a strange decision and I should like a slightly fuller explanation.

Mr. Key: It is really very straightforward. It is a national lottery and the Secretary of State for National Heritage is responsible to the House for the operation of the lottery. The Arts Council in Scotland is a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain as presently constituted. Next year, it will become the Scottish Arts Council in its own right and will then be answerable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the national lottery will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and he will be responsible to Parliament for it.

Mr. Tom Pendry: This debate is turning into a bit of a lottery already.
I propose to speak to amendment No. 26, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and others. I am afraid that I must disappoint the Minister: we shall not readily give in unless we receive a satisfactory reply.
We consider it important that bodies distributing lottery proceeds should be fully accountable for their decisions. In that context, we believe that they should be required to report each year on the grants that they have made from national lottery proceeds.
The spirit of the Government's amendments is that bodies distributing lottery proceeds should be required to act in a responsible and transparent manner. That is fair enough and we accept that there has been some movement on that, but we believe that, as part of that commitment to responsible action, distributing bodies should be required to report each year on the grants that they have made. An onus should be placed on them to demonstrate that a proportion of their funds has been spent for the benefit of low-income groups. In our view, that would demonstrate a commitment to responsible action.
There is much evidence to suggest that low-income groups will contribute disproportionately to the purchase

of national lottery tickets. The report by DKM Economic Consultants commissioned by the An Post lottery company in 1990—a report of which the Minister knows because it was mentioned in Committee—concluded that participation in the lottery is fairly constant across all classes. That claim has been seriously challenged by Desmond Norton of Dublin university. In his analysis of the report's findings, Norton shows that, on the contrary, education and income are key variables determining spending on the national lottery. The skilled working class and the unemployed spend more on tickets than do the middle classes.
That finding is confirmed by earlier research conducted in the United States by Clotfelter and Cook. Research recently undertaken by Saatchi and Saatchi on behalf of the Sports Council supports the view that participation in the lottery will be weighted towards those in the lower income groups. That survey, which examined the public's intention as regards the purchase of national lottery tickets, suggested that a larger proportion of those in social classes C1 and C2 than in the AB category would be regular lottery participants. In his report on the national lottery for the Gulbenkian Foundation, Professor John Kay notes that the Saatchi and Saatchi findings
are consistent with the results of the surveys in other countries. The general finding is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income on lotteries.
Professor Kay quotes seven different studies that have reached the same conclusion.
The aim of the lottery is to raise money for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millenium fund. Many of us fear that a large proportion of lottery money will be spent on high prestige projects such as opera houses and historic buildings. We have nothing against opera houses and historic buildings, but we want them to be put in context. Research on the current patterns of use of such facilities shows that low-income groups are less likely to benefit from such projects than high earners. We may regret that, but it is none the less the case.
The evidence suggests, therefore, that the lottery could be a form of regressive taxation, obtaining money from the least well-off to finance services for the better-off to enjoy. Opposition Members believe it essential, therefore, that information should be available about the pattern of participation in lottery play.
The amendment places on lottery distributors a duty to report annually on the grants that they have made from their allocation. If purchasing patterns for lottery tickets mirror those in other countries, the distributing bodies should be able to show that their allocation is being used in some measure to benefit those on low incomes. That could include providing funding for the development of access programmes in the arts, sport and heritage, as well as ensuring that programmes that are currently of direct benefit to those on low incomes are properly supported.
The Minister rightly said that the Government had moved a good way to meeting the points made in Committee. I hope that the Minister will go that bit further and accept the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. Tim Renton: I apologise to hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee for intervening in the debate on Report, as I was not a member of that Committee. However, as some of my hon. Friends will know, as Arts Minister, I was extremely active for 18 months in support of the cause of the national


lottery and in persuading my colleagues, including some rather intransigent colleagues at the Treasury, to support the idea.
The Treasury naturally objected to any idea of hypothecation of revenue and therefore to revenue going to causes outside its control. For 18 months, as the Arts Minister, I had a hard battle to win the Treasury round to my way of thinking. However, perhaps more of that later.
I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) about amendment No. 26, and although I fully appreciate the social causes and motives which caused him to table his amendment, the idea that the national lottery should in any way be used to fulfil social objectives—objectives that are in themselves worth while—strikes horror in my heart. That cannot be the purpose of the national lottery.
If those who are to subscribe—one hopes weekly, for fun, entertainment and in the hope of winning £1 million and in the knowledge that, if they do not win, the money will go to good causes—become aware that there is a weighting in favour of social security objectives, it will destroy the whole purpose for which the national lottery is being created.
Of course I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that some people may be more interested in the redevelopment of the Royal Opera house or in building a new museum of modern art for the Tate gallery than others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for example, on the Millennium Commission or elsewhere, will have to help people to take difficult decisions in due course. However, the aim must be to encourage people to take part in a lottery which is essentially for fun and for good causes as well.
If an underlying thought develops that there is a social security element and objective involved, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde would find that the take-up of lottery tickets, upon which everything depends, would be very much less than it would otherwise be. As a consequence, the whole purpose of the lottery, to raise substantial extra funds for heritage, sports, the Arts, for smaller charities and for the millennium fund will be lost.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rather gave himself away when, towards the end of his remarks, he said that the proposal could become a form of regressive taxation. We must avoid precisely the thought that this is taxation. If people come to believe that the lottery is a form of regressive taxation and a supplement to Treasury money, or a way of replacing money which the Treasury would otherwise have to provide to the Department of Health for hospitals or to the Department of Social Security for income support, the lottery is bound to fail.
Although I know that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has a long-standing interest in supporting, encouraging and increasing sports facilities in this country, I believe that he should not press his amendment. The thought behind it is contrary to the spirit that is necessary for the national lottery to be the great success that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope it will be.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The House should be worried by the last line of new clause 7 which states that anyone who is spending money or receiving cash must put a report before the House, but

This section does not apply to the Millennium Commission.
New clause 7, which is slipping through the House unnoticed is a perfect example of pork-barrel politics. Why should details about money given to the Millennium Commission not be reported to the House? The answer is simple. Anything spent in the year 2000 is likely to have a great effect on a general election that might be called in 2001.
Once the fund is established, anything linked to the year 2000 can be provided from a slush fund to buy votes. If we were at that stage now, the Government would be telling the managers of Newbury race course, "We will give you a new tote and some new tapes. You can run the Grand National here, so that the tapes do not break and everything does not go wrong. It is all to celebrate the year 2000; it has nothing to do with the Newbury by-election next week."
Already, the Prime Minister has been to Manchester and said, "We will back your bid for the Olympic games." Who will pay for that? Not the taxpayer. The Prime Minister has not obtained a single extra penny from the Treasury. No—he will dip his hand into the national lottery slush fund, and the Millennium Commission will get £60 million every year from now until the year 2000. The Prime Minister can spend all that lovely money, and he can say, "We, the Tory Government, have backed the Olympic games that will take place in the year 2000, and all those in marginal seats in the Manchester area—where we have created the jobs—should be desperately grateful to us."

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government have already stated their intention of supporting the Olympic games and contributed £15 million towards the building of a new stadium in Manchester?

4 pm

Mr. Ashton: They have not done so yet. They have said that they will back the games, but they have not given a penny, because no money has come in yet.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Government cannot commit the money.

Mr. Ashton: Why not? It is to celebrate the year 2000.

Mr. Corbett: It is not within the Government's gift to spend a penny of the lottery money on their own say-so.

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend has been in the House for a long time, as have I. He must be very naive if he honestly believes that the Government have no method of shifting money from one project to another in order to gain votes and popularity.
What is to stop the Government from applying new clause 7 to the Millennium Commission? Why should not a report be presented to the House? The new clause states:
The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section"—
that is, clause 22, which applies to distribution, and indeed clause 23, which concerns the application of money—
before Parliament.
That, however, does not apply to the Millennium Commission.

Mr. Key: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to get a word in edgeways, I shall explain to him that the millennium fund is dealt with specifically by clauses 38 and 39.

Mr. Ashton: If I am wrong, I will withdraw what it have said. However, we shall not know whether I am wrong until about 1998, and by then it will all be lost in the mists of time. The matter will be the third item of the business on the Order Paper, and someone will come along at about 1.30 am and slip in an amendment of which no one else is aware. That is how the House and the Government tend to work.
A phenomenal, unbelievable amount of cash is involved; yet its control is very vague. It should not be thought that Governments do not give election bribes—especially a Tory Government who sold council houses for about a fifth of their value in order to win the 1983 election. Such bribes have been given many times.
Will the Minister tell us why, according to subsection (4) of the new clause, it does not apply to the Millennium Commission? Perhaps he will refer later to clauses 37 and 38.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Millennium Commission is more tightly bound than any of the other bodies. Under clause 38, it must make a specific report. The clause states:
the Millenium Commission shall lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of their functions during that year.
That is a much more specific requirement than those applying to other bodies.

Mr. Ashton: The Government can do anything they like. The hon. Lady is saying that, once the Bill is passed, it is written on tablets of stone and nothing can be altered for the next six years. She must be very naive if she thinks that.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Under-Secretary of State has mentioned clauses 38 and 39. Clause 39(2) states:
The statement shall comply with any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State as to the information to be contained … the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared.
Does that not leave my hon. Friend with some forebodings about the amount of latitude that the Government will have on that statement?

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend knows exactly what I am saying. I do not trust any Government—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashton: Sit down. I shall not give way. I have given way five times in about three minutes.
The next general elections will probably be in 1996 or early 1997 followed by the year 2000 or 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is right to say that when a general election is approaching, the temptation to use the money on election bribes for any Government who face a difficult by-election will be irresistible. The Bill has built into it the facility for the Government to do so.

Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief. I wish to respond to the comments made by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), about

the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). The right hon. Gentleman kept referring to spending money on social security. Of course that is not what my hon. Friend meant.
Some Opposition Members are worried that the spending of the money raised by the national lottery will be focused on London and on large, prestige projects. As my hon. Friend said, such projects benefit a few relatively wealthy people. We are worried, first, that the money will not be distributed throughout the country to provide access to the arts and sport to all people, wherever they may live in the United Kingdom; and secondly, that, even where the money is spent outside London, it will be spent on prestige projects which do not necessarily benefit the average person who buys the lottery ticket.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman making the case that per capita public spending north and south of the border should be the same? If so, Scots would suffer from his suggestion.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman was at one time a junior Minister at the Scottish Office, but because he was stupid enough to introduce the poll tax, he lost his seat. If he had listened carefully, he would not have heard me mention Scotland or England once. I was not talking about the differences between Scotland and England. I was talking about outside London and inside London. That includes Manchester, Birmingham, Oldham and many places which ought to receive their fair share of the money spent by the ordinary people who buy lottery tickets throughout the United Kingdom. That is the point which I made and which the hon. Gentleman, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreted.
I was not a member of the Committee. I will not apologise to the House for taking part in the debate on Report. It may now be the custom that only Committee members take part in debates on Report. The Report stage was originally designed specifically so that Members of Parliament other than those who served on the Committee could take part in the debate.

Mr. Key: What an interesting debate it has been. I was certainly delighted that several hon. Members from both sides of the House spoke who did not take part in the proceedings in Standing Committee.
The speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) resembled a speech which might have introduced amendment No. 195, which we are not to debate. However, I understand why he felt it necessary to discuss the point and raise the issue of how the money will be distributed.
It is important to make it clear, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, that the way in which the mechanism of the national lottery has been constructed will ensure not only geographical distribution across all interests but the distribution of large or small sums of money. The great advantage of our system—which is the envy of most national lotteries around the world—is that there are separate mechanisms for the distribution and collection of the money. Unlike most national lotteries, the money will not go into the coffers of the Treasury but will be distributed by boards and committees consisting of people and organisations who have the confidence of the recipient sectors. Therefore, I reject those arguments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is absolutely right to react with horror to the


amendment and the proposition it contained. It is not intended to substitute national lottery money for main programme spending, whether on social services, the health service, sport or anything else. That has been made absolutely clear.
The points that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made were rehearsed at length in Committee, but they are none the worse for that. It is important that people recognise that important projects like the Manchester Olympic bid may well be eligible for applications to the Sports Council lottery committee, but it certainly will not be up to any Minister or the Millenium Commission to decide whether that project be in receipt of those sums.
The Government new clauses were promised in Committee, and they will ensure that all the distributing bodies will produce accounts and reports on the use of lottery funds separate from their other reports and accounts. The reports dealing with lottery funds will be made available to Parliament. The Government amendments are consequential upon the provisions in new clauses 7 and 8. The Millenium Commission is not covered by those new clauses. Although the Secretary of State will be a member of the Commission—and he may be its chairman—its report and accounts will be submitted directly to Parliament under clauses 38 and 39 and not to the Secretary of State. The report of the Charities Board will be covered by new clause 7, and consequential upon that clause will be the removal of clause 34.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Opposition Members who referred to the commission should note clause 39(3) states:
Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General".
A lot of people will keep a beady eye on that fund, so I cannot understand why Opposition Members should be so concerned.

Mr. Key: Neither can I. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.
The Charities Board will receive funds from the Secretary of State at first to cover start-up costs. Its accounts should include the use of that money, and for that reason clause 35 remains.
Government amendments Nos. 70 and 71 ensure that the definition of "financial year" covers anybody named under clause 21, whether now or in the future. Amendment No. 26, tabled by the Opposition, is intended to achieve the same end as the new clauses. I believe—and I hope that I have convinced the House—that that amendment is not therefore necessary.

Mr. Pendry: May I say to the Minister that I was surprised that he agreed—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman requires the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Pendry: I understand. With the leave of the House I shall reply to the debate.
I was surprised that the Minister agreed with the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), because his speech reminded me of what my economics tutor used to say to me: "Answer the question I asked, not the one you wish I had asked." I never made the speech to which he has

referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has answered all the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, so I will not go over them.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said that the lottery had nothing to do with taxation, but he should talk to the charities, the Sports Council and the Arts Council about the 12 per cent. tax yield that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed upon the lottery. It certainly is about taxation as far as they are concerned.
I do not want to push our amendment to a Division. I think that the Minister, in a more reflective mood—and certainly those in another place—might pick up the points I have made more intelligently than some Conservatives have today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

ACCOUNTS OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES OTHER THAN CHARITIES BOARD AND MILLENNIUM COMMISSION

'.-(1) A body shall keep proper accounts in respect of any money paid to it under section 22 and proper records in relation to the accounts.

(2) A body shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in which it was paid any money under section 22 or distributed or applied any money under section 23.

(3) The statement shall comply with any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State as to the information to be contained in such a statement, the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared.

(4) Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates as the Secretary of State may direct.

(5) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement and shall lay copies of the statement and of his report before Parliament.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section without the Treasury's approval.

(7) This section does not apply to the National Lottery Charities Board or to the Millennium Commission.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

PRIVATE LOTTERIES

'. For section 4(1) of the 1976 Act (private lotteries) there shall be substituted—
(1) In this Act "private lottery" means a lottery in Great Britain which is promoted—

(a) for members of one society established and conducted for purposes not connected with gaming, betting or lotteries;
(b) for persons all of whom work on the same premises; or
(c) for persons all of whom reside on the same premises, and which satisfies the conditions in subsections (1A) and (1B) below.

(1A) The lottery must be promoted by persons each of whom—

(a) is one of the persons for whom the lottery is promoted; and
(b) in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, is authorised in writing by the governing body of the society to promote the lottery.

(1B) The sale of tickets or chances in the lottery must be confined—



(a) to the persons for whom the lottery is promoted; and
(b) in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, to any other persons on the society's premises.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 192.

Mr. Lloyd: In Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) argued persuasively that where a society was holding a private lottery on its own premises any guests present should be allowed to buy tickets in the same way as they can join in a game of bingo or use gaming machines. I agreed to introduce Government amendments to achieve that, and this is what new clause 11 and amendment No. 192 do.

Mr. Pendry: I agree with the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen was very persuasive in Committee. She made sure that we all recognised the nonsense of the law as it stood and that in this particular area many of us flout the law ourselves almost every week of the year in the clubs that we frequent—Labour clubs in our case, of course. So we certainly accept the Minister's response in meeting the particular point that my hon. Friend made.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for the courteous way in which they have referred to the contribution that I made on this point. I thank the Minister also for listening to the arguments that were put and for accepting and incorporating them in the Bill. On behalf of the 6 million members of the Club and Institute Union and 10 million members of private clubs, some of whom I see here today, I wish to say thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

FREQUENCY OF LOTTERIES

'. For section 10 of the 1976 Act there shall be substituted—

Frequency of lotteries.

10.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe—

(a) the maximum number of lotteries that a society or local authority may promote under section 5 or 6 above in any period of twelve months; and
(b) the minimum number of days that must elapse between the dates of any two lotteries promoted under section 5 or 6 above on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 166.
Amendment No. 18, in clause 45, page 17, line 39, at end insert
'; but nothing in this section shall apply to a registered charity or non-profit making organisation in respect of any lottery or lotteries which have been in operation for more than one year before the passing of this Act.'.
Government amendment No. 190.

Mr. Lloyd: This new clause removes existing controls on the number and frequency of society and local authority lotteries. It responds to the many representations that I have received, as have, no doubt, many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, from football clubs and others about the effect of a provision in schedule 7 to the Bill designed to stop the practice of multiple registration. This arises where an organisation creates two or more separate societies, commonly operating from the same premises and with the same personnel, in order to circumvent the monetary limits on turnover or, once the Bill comes into force, to escape from Gaming Board registration.
I realise that, in order to maximise turnover, many football clubs and other organisations have been running 70 or 80 or more different lotteries a year. As the law stands, a society may only promote 52 lotteries in a 12-month period—that is, one a week. Organisations evade this restriction by registering perhaps three different societies—one to run a weekly draw lottery, another to run a monthly scratch card lottery, and a third, say, to run a large Christmas draw.
It is our aim, in the interests of fairer and more honest and effective regulation, to ensure that organisations register only the one society, but we do not want them to lose income as a result of limiting them to 52 lotteries a year. So, provided an organisation is operating within the £5 million new annual limit laid down in clause 46 of the Bill, I see no reason why it should be subject to an arbitrary limit on the number of lotteries that it may promote. If a football club decides that promoting 70 lotteries a year will maximise its income from this source, then so be it. That is a decision which ought sensibly to he left to the promoters of society and local authority lotteries. The new clause therefore removes from the face of the 1976 Act the restrictions on both the number and frequency of such lotteries.
I do not expect that this relaxation in the law will cause any regulatory problems, but the new clause contains an order-making power which will enable the Home Secretary to reimpose limits on either the number or frequency of lotteries, should the need arise. We will want to keep a close watch on the operation of the 1976 Act, as amended by part III of this Bill, but we would hope not to have to reintroduce controls of that kind. Amendments Nos. 166 and 190 are consequential on new clause 12.

Mr. Renton: Can my hon. Friend tell the House under what circumstances he thinks the need to reintroduce controls might arise?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not anticipate any problems, but if, say, societies were running lotteries so similar to each other at precisely the same time that it was impossible to distinguish whether the monetary ceilings were being breached, we might consider some further regulation to enable us to distinguish between them—but I see no reason why we should have to do this. Nevertheless, the opportunity exists to do so by regulations brought back to the House.
I hope that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will agree that amendment No. 18 is now unnecessary. Its underlying purpose—to relax restrictions on the number of lotteries that may be promoted by a society in any year—is even more completely achieved by the Government new clause, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I welcome the Government's move on this issue. At stake is the survival of hundreds of small cricket, football, rugby union and rugby league clubs. We welcome the removal of the barrier that would have meant that they could not run more than one lottery or scratch card competition at a time—perhaps at the same time as raffles on the Derby or Grand National.
I speak as the honorary president of the Lotteries Council, which, like the organisations I have mentioned, has welcomed the Minister's move.

Mr. David Alton: I, too, welcome what the Minister has said. He has moved a long way since our debates in Committee and has listened to the protestations of the smaller clubs, based everywhere from Rochdale to Tranmere. Members of the Committee received representations from places that they did not even know existed. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was largely responsible for that. He managed to generate one of the largest write-in campaigns that we have ever experienced—

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows all about write-in campaigns. He was responsible for 3,500 representations himself.

Mr. Alton: I am always happy to oblige. This has been a good example of the Government being responsive to positive and instructive arguments and in that spirit I am happy not to press amendment No. 18.

Mr. Corbett: The Minister will know of the great concern expressed by the smaller lotteries, not least those run by supporters clubs, when the Standing Committee was considering the Bill. He will forgive me if I slip on a black arm hand when I talk about supporters of Aston Villa, Birmingham City and Warwickshire county cricket club. Their great fear was that the introduction of the national lottery and of the lotteries of which it consists might damage their vital fund-raising activities on behalf of the clubs in which they take an interest. Probably the Premier division clubs are in a stronger position to face up to the competition from the national lottery—only time will tell.
The supporters clubs of small teams representing all sports were extremely apprehensive. We appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded to arguments in Committee and to the representations organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I do not say that through gritted teeth, because it is important in Bills of this kind, dealing with matters that are not party political, to do our best to respond to what people outside with proper concerns say to us.
The Minister's proposal in the context of the Home Office is positively revolutionary, because it is a long time since the Home Office was prepared to let go of a beloved

regulation. That applies especially to the grey areas in the Home Office. The Minister reminded the House of the remaining caution, and when his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked him about that, the Minister said, "We are not quite sure about whether to do this but in case we do, we want to have a fall back." It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the proviso may be needed, but on balance the caution is probably sensible. I again thank the Minister. We are delighted to support him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

REGULATIONS FOR LOTTERIES

.-(1) Section 12 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (regulations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (3A) below".

(3) In subsection (3), after "above", there shall be inserted "but subject to subsection (3A) below".

(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted:
(3A) Regulations under this section shall not prohibit the sale of a ticket or chance in any bingo club premises, within the meaning of Part II of the Gaming Act 1968.

(5) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, so much of regulation 6 of the Lotteries Regulations 1977 (which prohibits the sale of tickets and chances in certain premises) as prohibits such sales in bingo club premises (within the meaning of the said Part II) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Fry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Fry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee the Minister gave some guidance about where national lottery tickets would be sold. The new clause seeks to allow the sale of local authority lottery tickets and other lottery tickets in bingo clubs. The Minister outlined the principle that national lottery tickets will not be sold in the traditional markets for charity lotteries, such as public houses, the intention being that there should be no damage to the proceeds of such local lotteries which perform many good works.
The new clause is intended to explore the issue in relation to bingo clubs which are currently prevented from selling local charity lottery tickets. In that respect I declare my interest because I am the parliamentary consultant to the Bingo Association of Great Britain, which represents about 740 licensed bingo clubs throughout the country. The industry is keen to compete with and where possible participate in the national lottery. However, the White Paper that preceded the Bill said that bingo clubs would not be allowed to sell national lottery tickets, and the Minister confirmed that in the earlier debates on the Bill.
It seems rather strange that people who have joined a club to have a modest flutter should not be allowed to buy a national lottery ticket there. The Government seem to have moved a little way from the policy of non-stimulation of any form of gaming merely by promoting the Bill. My suggestion will not propel us all towards a hectic Sodom and Gomorrah in which the country gambles all its spare money.
There has already been much talk about the so-called level playing field for the various forms of gambling. Betting office hours in England and Scotland have been extended because of the damage that might be caused as a result of people gambling on a wider basis. The exact way


in which the national lottery will affect other forms of gambling is not yet clear, although there is great concern that they will be harmed. It is not necessarily good that other forms of gambling, and especially soft gambling, should be damaged too much.
Many hon. Members who visit their local bingo clubs know that they provide a valuable social activity as well as the opportunity of a flutter. Many such clubs are communities in themselves because people go there to meet friends as much as to play bingo. I remind the House that bingo is the safest and most acceptable form of commercial evening venue for single ladies who perhaps would not venture into any other sort of gambling establishment.
The industry has shown considerable community spirit and has a remarkable record of fund raising for charity. For example, over the past five years, the Bingo Association's annual charity week has raised £1·5 million. In 1987, it raised £200,000 for the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign. The following year, it was £220,000 for the British Heart Foundation, which used the money to buy 50 defibrillators to resuscitate heart attack victims on the way to hospital. In 1989, it raised £404,000 for Guide Dogs for the Blind—the largest ever single donation. The Royal National Lifeboat Institute received £245,000 in 1990, which paid for the lifeboat Bingo Lifeline. In 1991, £295,000 was donated to Marie Curie Cancer Care and last year £271,000 was raised for the Spinal Injuries Association.
4.30 pm
All that is on top of the money raised locally by individual clubs. This year, the charity work will not be for a national charity but co-ordinated at local level, so that players can choose charities in their area. Raising such large amounts of money requires imagination and hard work. If bingo clubs were allowed to run their own lotteries for charity, in the same way as other organisations do, it would add another feature to the fund-raising efforts.
I know that gaming premises are not allowed to run lotteries because there is a distinction between commercial and charitable activities. As such lotteries would be for charity—that is the main drift of the new clause—that should not present any problems. If the drafting of my new clause is not acceptable, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to accept the spirit of the new clause and instil it into a suitable form of words at a later stage, perhaps in the other place.

Mr. Corbett: I spent a little time last Saturday afternoon in the Cascade bingo club in Barnabas road in Erdington, in my constituency, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will know. There was a crowd of perhaps 300 people, paying devoted attention to the caller. They were mainly elderly and clearly out to enjoy themselves in groups of friends, to make use of the excellent refreshment and bar facilities at a cost of no more than £3, to spend a pleasant afternoon and perhaps—I think that it comes in this order—to win a few bob on the bingo. The nearest there was to trouble was when, inadvertently, I raised my voice to ask a question of Mr. John Wiley, the Cascade managing director, as the numbers were being called. That provoked a storm of sh's from those listening. The atmosphere, as anyone who has

visited a bingo club will know, was happy and relaxed. The players were enjoying themselves. Hundreds do that every week in that club and countless thousands in other clubs.
In essence, if I have understood this right, bingo is little different from the national lottery, in that players have to win by having a ticket, or a chance, which bears a predetermined set of numbers. What is little known is that the club, like many others—the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to that—gives between £5,000 and £6,000 a year to local charities and joins the other clubs, in the Bingo Association of Great Britain, in raising money for charities on a national basis.
The new clause would enable club members to buy lottery tickets for charitable causes, including for local charities. By no flight of fantasy could anybody suggest that the buying and selling of such local charity tickets would get in the way of the national lottery. They are very different animals. While the impact of the national lottery on the whole range of charity lotteries is unknown, if the lottery is to succeed it must attract a totally different audience from that which likes supporting local charities because the bulk of the money goes to the charity named on the ticket—bar administrative costs and prize money. It will not be divvied up like the national lottery. Participants will see the name of a local charity of which they approve and want to support and buying a ticket for 20p, 30p or 50p will be a way of donating to that cause—and there is the bonus that one may win whatever prize money is offered.
I hope that the Minister accepts that that is a very different market from the national lottery. The atmosphere in which bingo is played, which I sought to describe, is peaceful and restful. I asked Mr. Wiley when was the last time that there was any serious trouble. He told me that after running the place for two years after a management buy-out, he could not remember there ever being any trouble. The Cascade is not a converted cinema, but was purpose-built for bingo and its facilities are absolutely first class. There is no menace about the place. If there were, it would not attract the clientele that it does. They are genteel folk having innocent fun which I am sure they would not regard as gambling.
A neighbour of mine, who is a man of mature years, although he acts 20 years younger, goes to bingo with his relatives and friends— in his case I believe that they are the same—at least twice a week. It is rare for him on at least one of those visits not to come away with a few extra bob in his pocket. He goes there purely for pleasure and for social reasons—not for the money, although he welcomes his winnings.
I do not believe that anything will be lost by allowing bingo clubs to sell tickets in aid of local charities and, if they want, to run their own lotteries in aid of local charities if others are not doing so. That would in no way detract from the ambitions of the national lottery.
As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, the Minister may not be able for whatever reason to accept the amendment's wording, but I hope that he will reconsider between now and the Bill going to another place. There is nothing to lose and no gambling involved in allowing bingo clubs and their members to do as we ask.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made a fair case for allowing bingo clubs to sell tickets in society or local lotteries. He reminded the House that I intimated in Committee that


there may be scope for relaxing some restrictions on licensed bingo clubs, and I include the prohibition on the sale of lottery tickets among the controls that might sensibly be re-examined.
The restriction on the sale of society and local lottery tickets in bingo clubs is contained in regulation 6 of the Lotteries Regulations 1977, which also prohibits the sale of such tickets in other gambling premises—casinos, amusement arcades and betting offices. A number of amendments will already have to be made to the regulations as a consequence of the changes made to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 by part III of the Bill.
In the circumstances, it would be sensible to undertake a complete review of the 1977 regulations. I am sympathetic with my hon. Friend's views and, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), I do not think that a concession in this respect would necessarily lead to the end of civilisation as we know it. I agree with him that most bingo clubs are conducted in exactly the same way as that which he visited.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend conducts the complete review of the regulations, will he bear in mind the importance of extending the work of, for example, sub-post offices and their ability to sell lottery tickets? The commission that they could earn would he a valuable new source of income for them.

Mr. Lloyd: I see no particular reason why they should not sell local lottery tickets, or national lottery tickets, but there may be a Post Office regulation that prevents them from doing so. In that case, I shall reflect upon my hon. Friend's question and will invite my Department of Trade and Industry colleagues also to do so.

Mr. Orme: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). There is, however, concern that some people cannot really afford to play bingo. To introduce yet another form of gambling will not, I believe, be helpful. I thought that we dealt with the issue, to some extent, in Committee by excluding the sale of lottery tickets in specific areas—in betting shops, and so on. The Minster said, rightly, that he will look into the issue again. I ask him to remember that there is another side to the argument.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There is, alas, always at least one other side to an argument. That undoubtedly applies here. I have betrayed my own sentiment—that one side of the argument has perhaps more to be said for it than the other. I also said, though, as I said in Committee, that the Bill is not the place to make these changes. The rules exist in regulations. Similar rules apply to other establishments. We are having to make some changes. It is sensible to look at these matters together instead of having separate Home Office and other Government Department reviews. We shall want to hear from other groups before we reach a decision.
I ought to stress that the Home Secretary is obliged to consult the Gaming Board and local authority associations before making fresh regulations. He will certainly want to do that in this case. However, we shall not come to a decision, whatever our personal views may be, without

those who have an interest in the question being able to say what they think of it. We may then come back with proposals to amend the regulations.
If the regulations are amended, it will be up to the societies running the lotteries to decide whether they wish to sell their tickets in bingo clubs to decide whether they want to take them. On the understanding that the Government will give favourable consideration—although that falls short of saying what the conclusion will be—to my hon. Friend's proposal, I hope that he will withdraw new clause 2.

Mr. Fry: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for his support. I am delighted that he had such a happy visit to his local bingo club. If he went more often, perhaps he, too, would be fortunate.
May I point out to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) that the purpose of the new clause is to enable a greater number of British people to do what they already do so well, which is voluntarily to support charities. An enormous number of local charities would undoubtedly benefit from this change. No pressure would, I believe, be put upon anybody to spend more than he could possibly afford. It just means that, as part of a pleasant afternoon or evening out, people would have the chance of winning something and doing a bit of good at the same time. I see nothing wrong with that.
I have, however, listened carefully to the Minister. I understand what he said about reassessment of the regulations. I am delighted to hear that this subject will be part of the reassessment. In view of his help and co-operation on that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 4

SITING OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY HEADQUARTERS

'.—It shall be a condition of the licence granted to the body corporate to administer the National Lottery that its headquarters shall be established in an area which can demonstrate that it has suffered or will suffer job losses directly attributable to the establishment of the Lottery that it shall remain there for the period of the licence; and that a majority of the full and part-time staff employed shall live within the travel-to-work area in which the office is established.'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members will recall that when we debated the private Member's Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for a national lottery, the chief concern of many hon. Members with constituencies in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London was about the impact that such a measure would have on the existing football pools industry. Given that this issue was debated strongly on Second Reading and that hon. Members with Liverpool constituencies in particular repeatedly voiced their concern about the impact on employees of football pool companies, especially Littlewoods and Vernons on Merseyside, but also Zetters in London, the House will not be surprised that we are returning once more to this issue.
4.45 pm
It would be wrong for the House not to understand the depth of feeling of those who represent areas in which there is already high unemployment. Instead of people saying, "You're simply crying wolf," they should at least listen to what the football pools companies have said. I shall not again burden the House for long with the arguments, but I remind hon. Members of what each of the companies has said. In a letter to The Times, Mr. Paul Zetter said:
the choice is stark: football pools or a national lottery. You will readily understand why I oppose a national lottery.
Malcolm Hughes, the managing director of Vernons, said:
It is not possible to find an example anywhere in the world of a National Lottery and a Pools industry thriving side by side.
Malcolm Davidson, the managing director of Littlewoods, quoted from a letter to Littlewoods from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte which said:
A UK national lottery would effectively kill off the football pools within a period of weeks … A successful national lottery would act as a substitute for the football pools … as a result of this the level of employment within the industry will be dramatically reduced.
The House will not be surprised to hear that hon. Members who represent people employed in the football pools industry are pressing the case that, should it be proved that there has been a loss of jobs in areas where people are employed in the football pools industry, one of those areas should be chosen as the place where the headquarters of the new national lottery is set up.
The football pool companies believe that 6,000 jobs could ultimately be at stake as a direct result of the establishment of the national lottery. At a time of high unemployment in the country generally, most of us would be cautious about doing anything that might endanger existing jobs. We should not gamble with people's livelihoods.
In addition to the 6,000 people whose jobs may be at stake, there are some 70,000 football pools collectors who rely on the small amounts of money that they make to supplement their income—or their benefits, if they are unemployed. A very small number of jobs will be created by the national lottery. In Germany, 180 people run the whole of the national lottery scheme. We are not, therefore, talking about substitute jobs that would make up for all the jobs that may be lost as a result of introducing the national lottery.
The Minister will say that new jobs may be created in a number of other industries, but those industries may not be in areas where jobs have been lost as a direct consequence of the establishment of the national lottery. I draw the attention of the House to the letter which Mr. John Griffith, the editor of the Liverpool Echo, sent to the Prime Minister. He wrote:
I am writing to you on behalf of almost one million readers of the Liverpool Echo to seek a pledge that Liverpool can be the first winner of the proposed National Lottery.
I believe Liverpool is the right place to base this exciting new venture, and that an early decision to choose Liverpool would prove a great boost to the image and morale of the city.
As you will know, the National Lottery plan has prompted real fears about its impact on the thousands of pools jobs on Merseyside.
But the region is often encouraged to be positive, and I am convinced that we would prove the perfect base for a project that would clearly command national attention.
We have a proven track record as the football pools capital of the country. We have demonstrated that such competitions

can be run from Liverpool efficiently and successfully. We have all the infrastructure to make a Liverpool-based National Lottery a great success.
That is right. The expertise that Vernons and Littlewoods have developed over the years shows that the city has precisely the experience required to administer a national lottery. What better location could there be than Liverpool, which has earned so much respect for having administered the football pools so well and efficiently for many years?
The Government would be well advised to recognise the fears of communities such as mine. They should understand the worry that it is a matter not merely of pin money but of livelihoods. Very often, it is women who are employed in these jobs. More than 70,000 people are unemployed in the Liverpool area, so hon. Members representing Merseyside are not raising a trivial issue. If we are proved wrong, no one will be happier than those hon. Members.
I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will be able to tell the House a year from now that no jobs were lost in the football pools and that the two schemes were able to co-exist. No one would be happier than I if that should prove to be the case but, if it is not, the Secretary of State and the Minister should at least consider ways in which the communities that suffer as a direct result of the introduction of a national lottery might be helped. Surely that is elementary justice.
Expertise and experience in running such projects should be rewarded. Baroness Thatcher—dare one mention her name to Conservative Members these days?—opened Vernons' offices in Liverpool two or three years ago. I vividly remember her paying tribute to the efficiency and determination of that company. It must be recognised that our community has a special expertise, which is why we have tabled new clause 4.
I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the Minister, if only as a marker. If he cannot accept it, perhaps he will accept that the lottery should be established, not in an area with relatively low unemployment, but somewhere which has a reputation for running football pools, which has the necessary expertise and experience and which could prove that it has suffered as a direct consequence of the establishment of a national lottery.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that you will recollect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pools companies' worry about a national lottery was a thread which ran through our Second Reading debate and our early deliberations in Committee and recurred later when we discussed the exact topic.
It is right and proper that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) should express the worries of his constituents and others on Merseyside, but I cannot accept the principle of including in the Bill such a specific tying of hands of the promoter by saying that the whole lottery should be run from Liverpool or, indeed, Scotland or south Wales where the pools companies also have bases.
We could all outline worries in our constituencies about jobs that have been lost. Indeed, in Kingston upon Thames in my area a large British aerospace factory has closed with the loss of several thousand jobs. The hon. Gentleman's Liberal colleagues on Kingston upon Thames council would be proud of me if I said that I should like the national lottery headquarters to be established in


Kingston upon Thames, as would my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in whose constituency that factory was located. However, I am not saying that, because the promoters of the lottery should be able to site their headquarters where they think fit and where they think it will be run most efficiently. Of course, at this stage, we do not know who the promoters will be.
In early correspondence, the Pools Promoters Association said that it did not like the idea of a lottery but that, if the Government and the House in due course accepted the idea, it might be interested in promoting it. Perhaps the pools companies will very soon have the chance to make their case, and that would be one way to bring the whole operation to Merseyside. If the pools companies are not successful, the eventual lottery promoters must have the freedom to site their operation where they wish.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading and probably also in Committee: I do not believe that the pools companies will suffer from the introduction of a national lottery. I have known for a long time that the pools companies are highly innovative and efficient and dedicated to their enterprise. They will do what is necessary to keep the pools running. Italy has a similar ethos of football fanaticism and the pools and a lottery run happily alongside each other there. I do not accept that the pools companies will suffer as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and others have suggested, so I cannot support the new clause.

Mr. George Howarth: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Without giving one shred of empirical evidence to support his case, he asserted that the pools companies and, by implication, jobs, will not suffer as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. All of the empirical evidence from various studies carried out by reputable academic bodies and others suggests that jobs will be lost if a lottery is introduced. The number of jobs lost depends on how the lottery scheme will work but estimates for Merseyside alone range from 3,500, 4,000, 5,000 and up to 6,000. That evidence is available to hon. Members if only they cared to read it.
Against that background, hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies and constituencies across Merseyside—people sometimes cross local government boundaries to find work—believe that we have a very strong case. In Committee, those of us worried about jobs in the pools industry believe that improvements were made to the Bill which will probably reduce the job losses contingent on the introduction of a national lottery.
I made a quick calculation this afternoon and I suspect that the number of jobs lost is likely to be between 1,000 and 1,500 rather than the 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 mentioned earlier. However, we are still talking about a considerable number. There is no logical reason why, if Merseyside is to suffer job losses, we cannot ask the House to specify in the Bill that the lottery headquarters should be sited in Liverpool.
I support the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in one further contention. Many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the job is the sort of job that anybody anywhere in the country could do without too much difficulty. However, quite complex technology is

involved in the pools industry; for example, familiarity is required with working with different types of papers. It is quite a skilful sphere of work. From that point of view, Merseyside is suitable, in that many—although I hope not too many—people who have lost their jobs as a result of the national lottery may be available. That makes it an attractive site. If I may put in a particular plea, I can tell the House that if Knowsley were considered as a possible site, we could find suitable premises at a reasonable rent, or even for purchase.
5 pm
To return to our more serious argument, I agree that if gambling in this country were conducted in an entirely free market, it would be unfair to make a specification such as that in the new clause, which my Merseyside colleagues and I support. It would be unfair to say that the national lottery should be located on Merseyside or in another area that may suffer. However, the market is not totally free. Legislation has had to be introduced to enable the national lottery to be established. Rightly, gambling is a controlled activity. The market is not free, so if it is not unreasonable to specify limitations on gambling I do not see why it should be considered unreasonable to say which area should gain in terms of jobs and of the economic activity that will be generated.
For those reasons, I hope that the Government and other hon. Members will accept that we are not whingeing or moaning and that we feel that there is a genuine case to be made. I hope that if the measure is defective in some way, at least the spirit of our argument will be accepted and taken up, because we feel that we have a powerful case.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I give my qualified support to new clause 4. It is entirely acceptable that the headquarters of the national lottery should be in an area of high unemployment; that is a laudable objective. My concern, and the reason why I said that my support was qualified, centres on the hypothesis on which the new clause is based—that job losses will be suffered as a result of the introduction of the national lottery.
Certainly the headquarters of the national lottery should be in an area of high unemployment but, rather accepting the hypothesis on which the new clause is based, may I suggest Torbay as a suitable site? As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) rightly pointed out, complex technology will be involved and a high degree of sophistication will be needed in the personnel who will operate the equipment. However, a minor flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is based on the hypothesis that there will be job losses in the pools industry. It would be unreasonable for the Government to move the headquarters of the national lottery to somewhere where the job losses have not yet taken place.
In Torbay we can offer immediate office accommodation and highly qualified personnel. Of course, Torbay also enjoys beaches, an advantage which Knowsley does not enjoy, although it has many other advantages. Torbay would certainly be an ideal location.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Allason: I am making a serious point, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me and for the courtesy with which he has introduced his partisan argument about his constituency. Like the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), he rejects what he calls the hypothesis that there will be job losses, but he has yet to produce a shred of empirical evidence to counter our argument.

Mr. Allason: That is not how the Government can proceed. The Government cannot move the national lottery headquarters in anticipation of job losses. Let us suppose that, in the best of all worlds, there were no job losses and that people were attracted to the pools instead, so that more personnel had to be taken on by the establishments in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman would then be at something of a disadvantage, having tempted the national lottery headquarters to move to his constituency, because there might not be enough qualified people there to fill the job vacancies created. I am trying to free the Government from such a dilemma. In Torbay, the accommodation is immediately available.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made an important point when he said that the national lottery headquarters could be based anywhere. In connection with the next steps agencies initiative taken by the Government, I had hoped that the chief executives of the new agencies intended to move their expensive headquarters buildings from the centre of London and the west end out into the provinces where there is a real need for jobs and where qualified personnel and office space are available. Furthermore, there is a better way of life in the provinces than in central London.
Alas, a rather worrying example has already been set by some of the next steps agencies. For example, instead of moving from near Heathrow to a site further afield and taking up existing accommodation, air traffic control has moved to what is arguably the most expensive green field site in leafy Hampshire. That seems to undermine the object of the next steps initiative.
I urge the new administration of the national lottery seriously to consider placing the new headquarters establishment somewhere in the provinces that can demonstrate high unemployment. After all, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said, modern technology makes it irrelevant where the headquarters is sited. With fibre-optic cables and so on, the organisation does not have to be in the centre of London.
I regret that my previous plea for resiting major national establishments—to relocate MI5 from the west end to Torquay—was overlooked. I do not know why my idea was overlooked; it seems a crying shame that MI5 is to be relocated instead in Thames house, just down the road from the House. That is an extremely expensive location—although I discover that the enterprise is only 70 per cent. over budget.
I could give pretty firm undertakings about the kind of accommodation and the low costs that we could offer the staff of the national lottery if they were to consider moving to Torbay. Bearing in mind some of the replies to Environment questions this afternoon, I can give several other guarantees, including clean beaches and clean bathing waters.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr.

Davies) and I went to the headquarters of the national lotteries in New York and in Washington and found that they are about as big as the Tea Room? They employ about 50 people. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for people to go to Torquay there are thousands of gipsies in the north of England and gipsy sites are badly needed. I am sure that the gipsies would be glad to go to Torquay and enjoy all the benefits of the beaches. Would the hon. Gentleman like to offer them a chance of accommodation?

Mr. Allason: We are prepared to accommodate almost everybody, but the trouble with Torquay is that it does not have an awful lot of green spaces for gipsies to park their caravans on. We should be perfectly willing to consider any other suggestion, and we should certainly like to point out that we have a great deal of empty office accommodation in Torquay, and that we are open to offers. I offer here and now to any of the next steps agencies' chief executives who may be in the Strangers Gallery that they will have a warm welcome in Torquay; indeed, we have better weather than almost anywhere else in the country.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with this advertisement because it seems to be going very wide of the new clause.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that you will receive a very warm welcome in Torbay if you visit us.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is absolutely right. The headquarters of the national lottery can be sited anywhere in the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or the world."]—or indeed, anywhere in the world. Opposition Members are pleading with the Government to take on board the case made in Committee and again today: that, whatever they think should happen in an ideal world, we have to live in the real world. Those of us who represent seats in Liverpool, Cardiff and Glasgow know without any shadow of a doubt that although we do not know how many jobs will go, there will be job losses.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that he was sure that the pools companies were innovative enough to develop ways in which they would be able to compete with the national lottery and survive. That may or may not be the case. On behalf of the workers of those companies—I know that different interests are involved in the matter—I make the point that the number of workers in the pools industry will be reduced as a result of that competition. Anyone who studies the case carefully will conclude that that is bound to happen.

Mr. Nigel Evans: We are talking about a small number of jobs. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is far better for every assistance to be given to the promoter to ensure that the national lottery is a success and that as much money as possible is raised to go into the good causes? Does she agree that the extra jobs created, many of which will come into the north-west in any event, will be far better than just dictating that the national lottery headquarters should go to the north-west? It may not be as successful as it would otherwise have been.

Mrs. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) advanced a useful and interesting argument


about competition in Committee. He said that a healthy and competitive pools industry would be good for the national lottery, as would the small lottery and the other lotteries that we talked about today. However, there is no doubt that we are speculating about how successful the national lottery will be. We argue that the new clause represents one way in which the Government can guarantee a return to the areas that we know will lose out. People in Liverpool, Glasgow and Cardiff will lose their jobs.
If you will permit, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best way in which I can illustrate my point is to read to the House a poem that I received today from a pools worker. It is a cry from the heart and a plea to the House to reject the Bill entirely. It is very relevant to our debate because it illustrates better than I can the feelings of pools workers. The lady has entitled her poem, "My job! My job! My Kingdom for my Job." She says:
Lottery technology, my job is insecure,
Those above won't listen as my job goes out the door. For eighteen years I've given it, the best that I can give.
Without my job and wages, however will I live?
So, the lottery will create jobs, well, bravo! That's just fine.
But what about the redundant souls?
Remember one of them is mine!
It will take a fraction of the work force to run the lottery And a fraction of the work force too, with today's technology.
So what happens to the excess? They're not needed any more,
They end up just statistics and become a newstime bore.
Its time for us to stand and fight, if fighting is what it takes.
So please, come on, get off your butts
And squash it for our sakes.
I trust, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "butts" is parliamentary language. It fitted in with the rhyme.
I urge the Minister when he considers the arguments put today to take seriously the spirit in which they are made. I believe that the Government have accepted in part the case made to allow to a certain extent for unfair competition between the lottery and the pools. In doing so, they have recognised that there will he an impact on employment in the industry. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he replies.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on moving new clause 4 and on giving us the opportunity to debate the siting of the headquarters for the national lottery. I apologise for missing his opening remarks. Proceedings moved on somewhat more quickly than I had expected.
I understand entirely why Liverpool Members have made a plea for the siting of the headquarters there. For me, the obvious siting for the national headquarters in Basildon. I say that because my constituency is of national and international note. Over the past two or three years, Opposition Members have rightly worried themselves about the level of unemployment in my constituency.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the name of his constituency again?

Mr. Amess: In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it is the constituency of Basildon.
Opposition Members have worried about the level of unemployment in my constituency. There is no doubt that the impact of the economic slump which we have suffered over the past three years has been especially severe in the south-east.

Mr. Allason: And in the south-west.

Mr. Amess: And in the south-west, as my hon. Friend reminds me. We have lost many jobs in the construction sector and in service industries. People have been made redundant on a Friday and they have received no redundancy payments. In my constituency of Basildon, unemployment is roughly at the level it was when I won the seat 10 years ago and it is of great concern locally.
We want the national lottery to be the best lottery in the world. One way in which to ensure that is to make certain that it is placed in the town that is the most famous in the country. That town is Basildon. We have excellent communications along the A127 and A13. We are very near the channel tunnel. We enjoy excellent communications to Heathrow airport and to Stansted airport. Not only that, but the weather is quite clement.
We have the enthusiastic support of Essex county council. I believe that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill originated in Brentwood in Essex. Essex county council supports the bid to have the headquarters in Basildon, as does Basildon district council. It is important that where the headquarters is sited, the local population is enthusiastic about the whole concept of the national lottery. Of that there is no doubt. Basildon is totally committed to the national lottery. We enjoy a gamble. We believe that no job losses will be suffered in Liverpool because in Basildon we shall still fill in the football pools. We also very much want to participate in the national lottery.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the fact that Basildon wants to continue to lead the country to the economic recovery, which has clearly started. One way to ensure that is for people who are bidding for the headquarters to talk to me, to the county council and to the district council. We can offer a very good deal if they wish to site the headquarters in my constituency of Basildon.

Mr. Maxton: The frivolous way in which the last two Conservative Members who have spoken treated this very serious subject is outrageous. I am not necessarily 100 per cent. convinced by the arguments of those who say that there will be job losses in the pools industry, but they have a case. No Conservative Member who has spoken has made any attempt to answer the case that has been made by the pools industry and by those of my hon. Friends representing Liverpool constituencies. That is regrettable. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on one thing only. He obviously believes that all his constituents are born gamblers. He is absolutely right: they would have to be, to elect him.
Having said all that, I must say that I have reservations about the new clause—first, because I do not think that it makes sense and, secondly, because I do not like the fact that it refers only to the headquarters of the national lottery and I feel that other offices related to the national lottery should also go to areas where employment may be affected by its establishment.
Moreover, I am not sure whether the new clause requires the headquarters to go to the area that suffers most as a result of the establishment of the national lottery. Liverpool Members might make the case that more employees are employed in the pools industry in Liverpool than anywhere else, but that does not mean that Liverpool will be the only area affected. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is suggesting that this should be the first criterion, I have some sympathy with his argument—

Mr. Alton: The new clause specifically refers to an area that can demonstrate its case. Zetters may well go completely out of business—as everyone knows, it is probably the most vulnerable of the companies. North Merseyside and, in particular, Knowsley, North will be affected if Vernons suffers most, whereas if Littlewoods suffers most, the effects could be felt in Glasgow, Cardiff or Liverpool. That is why the matter should be left open.

Mr. Maxton: That is exactly my point. The new clause hints that the area that is worst affected should get the headquarters. My view is that, if we are to take these matters into account at all, employment effects should be the first criterion or one of the criteria on the basis of which the Government consider where the headquarters and other offices of the national lottery should go.
I had originally thought that I would resist the temptation to follow the example of other hon. Members by making a special plea for my area. As Oscar Wilde might have said, "There is only one way to defeat temptation and that is to give in to it." I will therefore make a plea on behalf of Glasgow. Glasgow may well be one of the areas that will suffer, so it would be covered by the criteria suggested in the new clause. The excellent, imaginative and innovative Labour-controlled local authorities—Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council—have a track record.

Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this context, it is a bit of a misnomer to call the area Glasgow? Littlewoods is based in Renfrew, and Renfrew district council has been more than helpful to Littlewoods.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps I should have said that all the excellent innovative Labour-controlled local authorities in Strathclyde have an excellent track record—despite the enormous problems put in their path by the Government—of attracting inward investment and putting together packages that allow office development, as has been shown recently with the Ministry of Defence, which we still hope will come to Glasgow. I hope that that track record will be borne in mind in siting the lottery headquarters.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I support the new clause because it is important that we make it clear that we are interested in ensuring that jobs go to the areas that may suffer as a result of the national lottery. I understand why some Conservative Members find it impossible at this stage to accept that there will be any job losses at all, but many of us are not convinced by the argument that the lottery will result in a net increase in the number of jobs and in the amount of money spent on gambling.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I deprecate the tone that has so far been adopted in the debate. Conservative Members

have understandably made pleas for their own areas but, in doing so, they have failed to pay sufficient regard to the very real anxiety felt by those in the pools industry.
In my area, there is substantial female unemployment, and female employment is provided by the pools industry in Hillington. Many of the ladies working in the industry have said to me that, if they lose their job, they will have little opportunity—at their age and with their skills—to find alternative employment in the surrounding area. Many of those women require their income because their husband is unemployed. In my view, it is not seemly for Conservative Members to mock the genuine anxieties that those people feel.
Notwithstanding the technical problems with the new clause, which I understand, the Government should make a commitment here and now that they will do what they can to ensure that any jobs that are generated—few though they may be—go to areas that will suffer as a result of the setting up of the national lottery. Such a statement will go a considerable way towards overcoming people's anxieties.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I do not think that Conservative Members have been frivolous. They have merely revealed the nature of the modern Conservative party. They have substituted for the principle underlying the new clause—which seeks to bring employment to areas that are likely to suffer increased unemployment as a result of the introduction of the national lottery—the argument that the jobs should go to any area where unemployment has increased as a direct result of Government policy. We heard that argument from three Conservative Members today and from two in Committee. We have even heard how the Chancellor's constituency is suffering.
I have news for Conservative Members: there are 651 of us in the queue, and all of us have a good claim for saying that the unemployment problems in our areas—caused by the depredations of a decade or more under a Conservative Government who have pursued higher unemployment as a part of their economic strategy—should be tackled. It simply will not do for Conservative Members to suggest on the basis of special pleading that their constituencies have the right to be exempt from the consequences of Government policy. The Opposition are pointing to a specific area of Government policy—the introduction of the national lottery, which will have consequences for those employed in the pools industry. We are concerned about those communities and this is an exceedingly serious matter.
Let us not have a national lottery headquarters on the Conservative model—bright and brash and marble-tiled, like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which will be supremely attractive to visitors from overseas, who will nevertheless bring precious little money to it. Let us instead have a lottery office like those in the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) mentioned the visit that he and I made to the headquarters of the lottery in Washington. Like so many cities in the United States, the capital has rich and poor living close together. The rich parts of the city—including Capitol hill—are fringed by the poorest parts of the city because there is little town planning and because little effort has been made to save the city centre.
The lottery headquarters is located in the poorer quarters of the city for two reasons: first, the lottery provides jobs for the local community; and, secondly, it is the people's lottery. It is all very well the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to suggest that the lottery will be patronised by their constituents—as it will be. The fact is that the vast majority of people purchasing lottery tickets will be people on lower incomes.
The lottery is a form of regressive taxation because its greatest appeal will be to those who have the least. Therefore, the lottery headquarters should be located in an area where it can serve the people best. If the lottery is to be a success, it must appeal across the board. The vast majority of people who will participate in the lottery will have fairly limited resources. As a small gesture towards employment policy, we should consider the regions that deserve the few jobs that the lottery will provide.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said today and what was said in Standing Committee where, as members of the Committee will be aware, we explored the issue fully.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an aside from a sedentary position earlier to which I should like the Minister to reply. The hon. Member for South Hams said that the lottery headquarters could be located anywhere in the world. That is an interesting hypothetical proposition. Tattersalls is a very good lottery operator in Australia. If it is technically posible with electronic mail and similar technology for Tattersalls, with all its expertise, to bid to operate a lottery here, could our lottery be run from overseas—for example, from Europe or elsewhere? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Mr. Graham: All hon. Members are aware of my feelings about the national lottery. I would much have preferred to be here today arguing that the pools should continue as they are. However, I have received hundreds of letters from people who work in the pools industry. They believe that they are now facing the dole. I can understand that belief when we consider how pools companies in other countries have gone to the wall when lotteries were introduced in those countries.
It is unbelievable that Conservative Members are joining in the worst kind of lottery imaginable—the lottery for jobs. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is very fortunate that his constituency does not suffer the kind of unemployment that is raging throughout the country. Areas like Strathclyde and Merseyside are experiencing unbelievable and horrific levels of unemployment. The hon. Member for Basildon should come with me and speak to people who are on the dole in my area who have been working their butts off trying to get a job. Some of them have been unemployed for years. They look for work every day of every week.
The pools industry faces a catastrophe. Thousands of members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have already lost their jobs as a result of the recession and the economic situation created by the Government. If the Bill is passed, thousands more members of the USDAW will be on the dole.
In all fairness, I recognise the thinking behind the new clause. If there is to be a headquarters for the national lottery, we must bear in mind the thousands of people who face the dole. I understand that we are talking about the creation of about 100 jobs. I believe that one extra job in my constituency is worth fighting for. I am sure that my colleagues will accept that any jobs are welcome so long as we are increasing the number of jobs and not taking them away.
I saw Conservative Members smiling earlier. They will never see me smiling when folk face the dole. I was on the dole and I know what it is like. I know how important it is to work and to get a wage at the end of the week to pay the rent, mortgage and electricity bills. I have worked hard during my life and I have been on the dole. I have faced it and felt it.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman support the social chapter which would cost thousands of jobs in this country?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to this particular debate.

Mr. Graham: I am delighted to have your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do not wish to join in the obscene bidding for Strathclyde, Merseyside or anywhere else. I hope that wisdom will prevail. I hope that the site of the headquarters will be determined after we have considered the areas in this country that face unemployment. Indeed, unemployment is still increasing in many areas.
I have examined the new clause. It may be important for us to be seen to argue for the headquarters to be located in an area that is suffering deprivation and unemployment. However, if the Bill had not been introduced, thousands of workers would be working away merrily and happily. They would still be picking up a wage at the end of the week. They would still be able to take the jobs that they need. They would still be sharing their wealth with the nation by paying their contributions to the tax system.
I agree reluctantly with the new clause. I plead with Conservative Members to consider the fact that the situation is of their making. Will the Minister please give us an assurance? Not long ago, it was said on the Floor of the House that thousands of jobs would not be lost as a result of the Bill. If hundreds of jobs are lost, will the Minister review the situation? Would he then come back to the House and tell us what he intends to do about it?
I sincerely hope that the Minister will genuinely consider the workers who possibly face the dole. When Ministers come to take the decision, I hope that they will consider the people on Merseyside. I believe fundamentally that the folk on Merseyside probably have a larger and more justified claim to have the headquarters located in their area than people anywhere else in the country. I am sure that none of my colleagues from Glasgow or Renfrew district would argue against the folk on Merseyside.
The hon. Member for Basildon is jocular. I may be entering into a similar spirit, but I do not know where Basildon is. However, I certainly know where the dole queues are and I know where they lead. They lead to a dismal life for millions of our people. I hope that the people of Basildon, like the people in my constituency, feel


that at the end of the day, the headquarters of the national lottery might provide a future and perhaps a new career for unemployed people.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been rather caught up today. I lost my hearing aid tonight and I cannot find it. However, some people will lose their jobs because of this Government and they will not be able to find new jobs.

Mr. Pendry: I, too, support the thrust of the new clause. Any objective person listening to the debate will have observed the contrast between some hon. Members' rather frivolous approach to the problem of unemployment and the attitude voiced by, for instance, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for Knowsley.

Mr. George Howarth: Knowsley, North.

Mr. Pendry: I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I accept that an important distinction is involved.
The able way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke to the new clause shows how deeply Opposition Members feel about the problem. Since the introduction of the Bill, they—along with some Conservative Members—have expressed great concern about the lottery's effect on employment levels in the pools industry.
As has already been pointed out, Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and indeed London are the most vulnerable areas. Liverpool has a male unemployment rate of 20·8 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 15 per cent.; Cardiff has a male unemployment rate of 14·1 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 9·9 per cent.; Glasgow has a male unemployment rate of 15·5 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 11·2 per cent Of course, those figures cannot in themselves convey the lack of personal esteem and social cohesion that was so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde.
During the past few days, Conservative Members have claimed that the recession is now over; but it still seems very real for the 3 million people who are out of work, with no real chance of finding a job. All the three known reports that have investigated the effects of a national lottery on the pools industry have predicted a severe impact on employment. In many ways, the findings of the report by the GAH group seem the least pessimistic: according to The Guardian, it suggests that 1,100 pools jobs will be lost in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London. The Coopers and Lybrand report—commissioned by the pools promoters in response to the Government's White Paper last year—predicted the closure of Vernons and Zetters, and a 40 per cent reduction in Littlewoods' turnover.
Like other hon. Members, I accept that concessions made in Committee have gone some way towards establishing a more level playing field between the lottery and the pools industry. It remains the case, however, that the establishment of a lottery is likely to reduce employment—both those employed directly by the pools industry, who were cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and of part-time coupon collectors—in the absence of counterveiling employment creation measures. Surely it is fair to propose to give the areas that

will be most adversely affected by the lottery's introduction a better-than-average chance of housing its headquarters.
For those reasons, Labour Members accept the spirit of the new clause. I hope that the Minister will follow suit.

Mr. Key: I recognise the depth of feeling about this issue. One of the joys of the English language is that it allows people to express deep feelings, sometimes through anger and passion and sometimes through humour; on occasion, the dividing line is narrow. Although some of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, some Opposition Members—may have spoken with levity, no one should doubt that the current feelings about unemployment on Merseyside are registered and understood. Such feelings run deep in the House, as, of course, they do among all who face unemployment. As we are discussing the pools industry, should cite Strathclyde as well as Cardiff and London: all have sizeable populations involved in, or reliant on, the pools industry.
It is true that the new clause is very tightly drawn. I am sure that that was intended. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is difficult to see how so narrow and prescriptive a measure could fit comfortably in the Bill: I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) drew our attention to the problems.
The fact is that we do not know what will happen to jobs in the pools industry; what we do know is that the lottery will create a number of jobs. Although only a modest number will be created in the headquarters, expect thousands to be generated nationwide in the operation of the lottery and in the supporting industries—computing, marketing, printing and the retail sector which will sell the tickets.
That, however, is not the burden of the argument, which is concerned with jobs on Merseyside. As I said in Committee, I understand the position very well: I would scarcely have spent my time in north America trying to persuade the Americans to invest in Liverpool if I did not consider Merseyside worthy of investment. As has been said, it has a good track record.
5.45 pm
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made a strong speech, which was not devalued a jot by his constituency interest. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson)—who spoke eloquently in Committee—reminded us that we should look north of the border as well. That view was echoed by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who, over the years, has established a reputation for sincerity in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made a sensible speech on behalf of his constituents. It would be wrong for any hon. Member representing the north of England to assume that the position in the south and west is not serious, as I discovered a couple of weeks ago during a tour of Devon and Cornwall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right: we need to talk about a successful lottery that will generate more jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) pointed out that, if the headquarters were located in that town, we could be


certain of securing one of my ambitions—a very British lottery. As my hon. Friend said, Basildon is at the heart of Britain.

Mr. Maxton: With all due respect, I must defend my fellow Scots. I think that the Minister should have said "at the heart of England".

Mr. Key: Let us say "at the heart of the United Kingdom".
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made a passionate speech. I am grateful to him for setting the debate in a wider context.
Technology being what it is, the lottery's headquarters could, of course, be located almost anywhere in the world, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that they will be located in the United Kingdom; otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to enforce licence conditions. It is normal throughout the world for lottery operators to be located in the country concerned.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) provided the touchstone of the debate. I congratulate her: I know that for many months she has worked tirelessly on this difficult issue on behalf of her constituents. She has always brought originality as well as fervour to our debates, and she did not let us down on this occasion, even including a touch of poetry. That is another joy of the English language, and I commend her constituent who composed the poem.
I appreciate the spirit behind the new clause, although I cannot back its premise that the national lottery will have a significant effect on unemployment in specific areas. I have said on many occasions that the effect of the national lottery on employment in the pools industry will depend on how the pools promoters choose to conduct their operations.
As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde remarked, we moved a long way in Committee on the problems confronting the pools industry. However, employment levels in the pools industry are steadily declining and I have not heard any guarantee that employment levels would be maintained if we did not introduce a national lottery. There is a problem of technology as well as the problem of the national lottery. Of course markets are not set in concrete. Pools operators throughout the world are restructuring to make their games more attractive. Now the pools industry in Britain has an opportunity to do a great deal more in modernising its regime as a result of the changes which we introduced in Committee.
I accept one aspect of the serious intent behind new clause 4. I accept that the siting of the headquarters and associated service components of the new national lottery represents a tremendous opportunity for jobs which many areas are keen to attract. Wherever the operator sets up —much of Oflot's operation would be likely to follow—the area chosen would benefit enormously from direct employment and the secondary benefits which that produces.
However, I cannot accept the new clause because it contains the wrong emphasis. We should also avoid inserting such a restrictive clause into the Bill and into modern legislation. I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that if I were a potential clause 5 operator, I would contact areas designated assisted areas and the

Department of Trade and Industry to learn about the many advantages intrinsic to those assisted areas and the many Government benefits available to companies which establish themselves there.
Many of the organisations which are interested in putting in a bid are looking at assisted areas with a view to setting up the headquarters and manufacturing the hardware for the lottery in those areas. That is most welcome. Merseyside development corporation, to name one excellent assisted area, has drawn up plans to offer potential operators every possible advantage and facility in setting up in Merseyside. Liverpool city council has also worked on the project. That is particularly welcome.
Many more areas have made such plans. It is not a matter for frivolity. Genuine bids have been made for the work from as far afield as Glasgow and Tayside, Cornwall, Dorset, and, as we have heard today, Basildon and Torbay. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is naturally keen that we should guarantee that the lottery operation will go to Liverpool. That would be unfair to the other areas which have already expressed interest in welcoming the lottery.
The new clause is tightly drawn. I personally think that it is rather impractical. I do not take much pleasure from imagining areas vying with one another to show that they stand to suffer more than other areas from the advent of the lottery. That is rather macabre.

Mr. Graham: Does not the Minister accept the point made by Opposition Members that Merseyside, Strathclyde and other areas will probably suffer loss of employment in the pools industry as a result of the introduction of the lottery? We therefore make a special plea for the headquarters to be set up in one of those areas.

Mr. Key: Yes. Of course I accept that Merseyside is more likely to be affected than any other area. What I have to say about that is straightforward. Under clause 11, the Secretary of State will ensure that location is one of the many matters which are taken into account in deciding whether to grant a licence. That could not be an overriding consideration if it conflicted with the director general's overriding duties in clause 4 to create a lottery run with propriety in the interests of participants generating maximum net proceeds. However, I am clear that it should be one of the matters which are taken into account. That puts an onus on the interested areas to make their best case to potential operators.
Today's debate has ensured that any potential operator who takes seriously the proceedings on the Bill in the House will, on reading the report of the debate, be under no misapprehension about the seriousness with which we have treated the subject. They will therefore bear in mind carefully what I have said about granting a licence.

Mr. Alton: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few remarks in response to the debate. I recognise that we have had a good debate in which many hon. Members have participated. Obviously, I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. I am also sorry that he misrepresented the new clause. I did not intend to seek a Division, but after hearing his reply I feel more determined to press the matter, if it is the will of Opposition Members that we should test the issue.
It worried me that the Minister suggested that the amendment contained an attempt to bring the headquarters of the national lottery specifically to the city of


Liverpool. The new clause does not mention Liverpool once. It seeks to set out a clear principle that, if a part of the country can demonstrate that it has lost jobs as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national lottery, the headquarters should be situated in that area. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
If the Minister had said that, although he was not happy to include the new clause in the Bill, he accepted the principle and would reflect before the Bill went to another place on whether he could go some way to meeting hon. Members' points, I would have been happy to act reasonably and would not have pressed the new clause to a Division. But, in the light of what has been said, I believe that the issue is so important that the House ought to divide on it.
Every Member of Parliament could have set out a case for his constituency. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is an indomitable and well-known spirited fighter for his constituency, but the fact remains that his constituency will not directly lose a single job as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. That also applies to the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Member for Surbiton referred to job losses at British Aerospace. They have nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the national lottery, as he would be the first to concede.
But jobs will be lost at Zetters, Vernons and Littlewoods in the view of many Opposition Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for other constituencies.
It is the clear view of many people that jobs will be lost. It is the view of the industry itself. I am the first to accept that that may not happen. If it does not, the new clause makes the way clear to site the headquarters in any part of the country that can demonstrate that it would be the right place, be it Basildon, Torbay or Surbiton. However, if areas can demonstrate—I believe that they will be able to do so—that they have suffered a significant loss of jobs directly attributable to the introduction of the national lottery, it is surely not unreasonable for Members of Parliament from those communities to ask that the new jobs should be placed in those areas.
Hon. Members have made the point—it hardly needs reiterating—that unemployment is deeply corrosive of family and community life. It deeply affects those who become unemployed. People who are currently employed in industries such as the pools industry in Merseyside, Glasgow or London and are likely to lose their jobs will note the debate today with great care. As the hon. Member for Broadgreen said, many of them have written to Members of Parliament saying that they fear for their job. Surely it is not unreasonable to say to them that if, a year from now, they can demonstrate that, as a result of the introduction of the national lottery jobs have been lost from their community, we will ask that the new jobs created by the national lottery should go to that district.
Hon. Members from across the political divide are making a strong and united plea. The House will be aware that I disagree on many political issues with many of my hon. colleagues from Merseyside. But on this issue we are united in our plea. It is not good enough for hon. Members to accuse hon. Members from one area of militancy and extremism when they hear a united plea and a sustained

argument which is perfectly reasonable. The Government should listen to that carefully. Instead of accusing hon. Members, as they did on Second Reading, of fighting the wrong battle at the last ditch, the Government should recognise that here is an example of hon. Members making a perfectly sensible proposal. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the new clause in the Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 259.

Division No. 251]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gunnell, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hall, Mike


Ainger, Nick
Hanson, David


Allen, Graham
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Heppell, John


Ashton, Joe
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Barnes, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Bayley, Hugh
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoyle, Doug


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Betts, Clive
Hutton, John


Blunkett, David
Ingram, Adam


Boyce, Jimmy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Burden, Richard
Jowell, Tessa


Caborn, Richard
Keen, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Khabra, Piara S.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Leighton, Ron


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Lewis, Terry


Clapham, Michael
Livingstone, Ken


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Coffey, Ann
Lynne, Ms Liz


Connarty, Michael
McAllion, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McCartney, Ian


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corston, Ms Jean
Maclennan, Robert


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dafis, Cynog
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Davidson, Ian
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meacher, Michael


Dowd, Jim
Meale, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Enright, Derek
Miller, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mudie, George


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Gapes, Mike
Olner, William


Garrett, John
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gerrard, Neil
Parry, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Thomas
Pickthall, Colin






Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prescott, John
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Dawn
Trimble, David


Randall, Stuart
Tyler, Paul


Raynsford, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wallace, James


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Simpson, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. David Alton and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.


Spellar, John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hannam, Sir John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heald, Oliver


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Couchman, James
Hendry, Charles


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)





Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mac Kay, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Madel, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malone, Gerald
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Trend, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Milligan, Stephen
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale. John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Norris, Steve
Wilkinson, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Willetts, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Patnick, Irvine
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Porter, David (Waveney)



Powell, William (Corby)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

MINIMUM AGE FOR PURCHASE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

'. —(1) Any person who sells a ticket for the National Lottery to a young person shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.

(3) In this section, the expression "young person" means a person—

(a) who is under the age of eighteen years and whom the person committing an offence in relation to him under this section knows, or ought to know, to be under that age; or
(b) who is apparently under the said age:
provided that in the case of any proceedings under this section for an offence in respect of a person apparently under the said age, it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he had in fact attained that age.'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 51, page 20, leave out from line 37 to end of line 15 on page 21.

Mr. Alton: New clause 5, which is linked to amendment No. 5, deals with the minimum age for the purchase of lottery tickets. We explored this issue in Committee and those who have read the extract of the proceedings in Committee will know that I advanced the case that we should not do anything deliberate to stimulate gambling among younger people. I hope that the House will have chance to reflect on what I trust will be a fairly brief debate on this new clause and amendment and that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the amendment, will at least give some consideration to the principles underlying it so that it can be given further thought between now and debate in another place.
The chairman of the National Council on Gambling has described as "naive" the Government's view that, as lotteries are the softest form of gambling, a fairly relaxed regime of control is consistent with policy. Any restrictions are undesirable, the Government's argument goes, because they want to stimulate the maximum amount of revenue. But surely there must be exceptions to that rule. I argue that young people are one of them. The same argument can, for that matter, be extended to the poor and, interestingly, to women—a group that the Minister said in Committee he particularly wanted to target as people likely to purchase tickets for the national lottery.
The Government, therefore, will widely promote the lottery in an indiscriminate manner to achieve the objective of raising the maximum amount of revenue, and one of the groups that they will quite unashamedly target will be young people. Such an approach is best summed up by the belief that if one is to have a lottery it might as well be one that makes as much money as possible, regardless of who or where the money comes from. Inevitably, as the lottery matures, they will seek to maintain growth in revenue and profits and will either seek to attract new participants or encourage existing participants to bet more.
Lotteries inevitably generate strong commercial pressures which take little account of social considerations, and this lottery will be no different unless we build

in safeguards. That is why my new clause and the amendment set out to protect those who are under 18 years of age. Unless we build safeguards into our legislation, as has been the experience in the United States, we will see pernicious and misleading advertisements and promotion on television, in our newspapers and on hoardings in our deprived areas, and many of them will be targeted at young people.
6.15 pm
I would like to draw the attention of the House to one such advertisement that appeared on Connecticut television, entitled "Misspent Youth". It opens with an older man sitting in a boat, afloat on a calm mountain lake. He says reflectively:
When I was younger, I suppose I could have done more to plan my future. But I didn't. I guess I could have put some money aside. But I didn't. Or I could have made some smart investments. But I didn't … Heck, I could have bought a one-dollar Connecticut Lotto ticket, won a jackpot worth millions, and gotten a nice big check every year for twenty years. (Smiling broadly) And I did! I won! … I won millions —me!
A voice-over then spells this out. It says:
Play LOTTO. You only have to win once. Jackpot prize paid out in twenty instalments. Overall chance of winning is 1 in 30.
In fact, although the odds of winning something are 1 in 30, the odds of winning the million-dollar jackpot are 1 in 13 million.
There are other examples but I quoted that particular one in Committee as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has said, and I want to add to it because it builds up the case that, where there are lotteries already in operation in the United States, many have targeted the young in the way that I have described, or at the poor. For instance, in Illinois an advertisement depicts a man scorning people who invest in savings bonds: investing in the lottery, he says, is the only way to become a millionaire. A ghetto billboard offered Chicago's West Side residents this advice:
How to go from Washington Boulevard to Easy Street —play the Illinois State Lottery.
The recession has prompted another pitch in Washington. Lottery billboards round the city describe the lottery there as "the ultimate shock absorber".
New York once ran a commercial showing a mother telling her daughter that she need not strive for a scholarship because her mother was playing the numbers. A billboard placed in Boston College's football stadium last year offered this inducement to diligent study:
Be a millionaire before you graduate—play the Massachusetts lottery.
So the experience from the United States is not good.
There is evidence from this country too of the existing problem of young people who are gambling. I draw the attention of the House to the work undertaken by Dr. Sue Fisher of Plymouth university. She points out that a survey of United Kingdom secondary school children, aged 11 to 16, inquired into the prevalence of adolescent gambling and pathological gambling on fruit machines, and related behaviour. Sixty-two per cent. of the children in the survey gambled on fruit machines, 17·3 per cent. at least weekly and 5·7 per cent. pathologically. Some began gambling as young as eight years old.
Sue Fisher did a study located in a seaside town in the south-west with a population of 6,000. The commercial leisure facilities are dominated by three arcades, purpose-built for the playing of fruit and video machines.
One arcade prevents local children from entering in school hours; the others impose no age restrictions. The arcades remain open throughout the winter months as well as in the holiday season so that local children have virtually unrestricted access to fruit machine gambling in arcades throughout the year. In addition, fruit machines are sited in cafes, fish and chip shops and holiday camps and are also played by the children surveyed.
The survey was carried out during the autumn of 1990 in a school which is the sole provider of state secondary education for that seaside town and its hinterland. The questionnaire included a frequent question on a variety of gambling forms to establish the prevalence of fruit machine playing and its relevance to other games. Ninety-nine per cent. of children had gambled in the year preceding the survey. As expected, fruit machines were the most popular form of gambling and 62 per cent. of children had played them in the preceding year. Next in popularity were card games, 30 per cent. of the children having played them, and games of skill, especially pool —27 per cent. had played that. Nine per cent. of the children had bet on playground games such as "coins up the wall", and a further 8 per cent. had bet on football pools. Eight per cent. of the children had bet on horses and dogs; 20 per cent. of them gambled weekly, and 9 per cent. gambled three or more times a week.
Predictably, fruit machines were played more frequently than any other form of gambling: 17·3 per cent. played at least once a week. Next in popularity were games of skill, with 7·5 per cent.; followed by cards, at 3·9 per cent., playground games, at 2·4 per cent., football pools at 2 per cent. and horse and dog betting at 0·4 per cent.
The implications of all this for the scratch cards that are likely to be sold as part of the national lottery should be more than evident to all hon. Members. While most children spend small amounts on fruit machines, 25 per cent. had spent more than £5 in one day, and 4·6 per cent. of them spent more than £10 every single week. Seven per cent. gambled at least three times a week—and there were no significant gender differences in the study that Sue Fisher carried out.
The problems that this generates are worth considering for a moment as we decide whether to allow young people to purchase lottery tickets. Fruit machine playing, according to the survey carried out in this west country town, created problems for some of the children that impinged on their schooling and their relationships with family and friends. Some of the problems involved illegal acts. Eight and a half per cent. of the children played fruit machines even though they knew that their parents had forbidden it; 10 per cent. of parents had fallen out with their children or close family because of fruit machine playing; and 15 per cent. of the children admitted that they had lied to hide the extent of their involvement.
Thirty-seven per cent. of the children had borrowed; 21 per cent. had spent their school fare or dinner money; 11 per cent. had stolen from their families; 2 per cent. had stolen from outside the home to play the fruit machines. Four per cent. had sought help with a serious money problem attributable to fruit machine playing.
It is obvious to anyone who thinks about these things or who has any familiarity with urban life that adolescents are particularly susceptible to pathological gambling. As with substance abuse, so the gambling problems among young people are undoubtedly part of the reason for crime levels among them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about fruit machines—the Yorkshire Post has run a good campaign against them, and something should certainly be done about them. I wonder, however, whether the hon. Gentleman is right to pursue the analogy with the national lottery, because there is a difference: fruit machines are almost a way of life. They are put in places that are designed to be exciting and open all the time. Spending fairly small sums of money on them can become an addiction, but surely the national lottery represents a different dimension?

Mr. Alton: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, the study that I have been citing goes on to show that the compulsive gambler frequently starts with what appears to be an innocuous form of gambling, such as a lottery, and ends up on the harder forms, such as slot machines. Ours is the only country in the world that allows children to gamble on slot or fruit machines. We should be ashamed of that. Children who are already addicted to slot machines are far more likely to indulge in other forms of gambling—all the more reason why we should protect them. That is why the principle enunciated in Committee found some support on both sides of that Committee. This is not a partisan issue; we should all be worried about this country's young people.
Young people are picked up and used by pimps and by others who exploit them or sell drugs to them or lure them into a world of criminality. We should therefore not add to the pressures on them, since they are already excessively exploited. The United States experience clearly shows that young people are one of the target groups for lotteries, and I fear that we may set out to lure them into purchasing tickets here in the same way—advertisements even in colleges encouraging young people to spend some of their money on lottery tickets. Do we really want to encourage people to use their money to try to succeed by gambling on a national lottery—what I would term the chance mentality? Surely we should build in safeguards for young people.
Before hon. Members point out that young people are allowed to do many other things at the relevant age, I should add that that does not invalidate the new clause or the amendment. It does not mean, for instance, that we should provide young people with drugs or encourage them into vice. There is no reason why we should deliberately set out further to encourage gambling by young people in the national lottery, or why we should allow the deliberate targeting of young people by failing to build in safeguards to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Brewers Society. I support the Government on the Bill. There is no need to increase the age limit from 16 to 18, and I do not believe that the lotteries will take the form of hard gambling. This is, after all, a question of judgment, and the Government have probably reached the right decision—that 16 is the right age.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was clearly concerned about misleading advertising, but clause 12 provides safeguards against that sort of misinformation, as does other legislation on accuracy in advertisements, allowing the Advertising Standards Authority to enforce the same.
An anomaly might arise, because at an early stage of the Bill's progress the Government suggested that public houses would not be allowed to sell lottery tickets. Sixteen-year-olds might therefore be able to buy tickets, but those aged 18 or over, if drinking in a pub, would not be able to buy them. I see no reason for such a prohibition. Perhaps the Government feared that the lottery would be associated with gambling and that pubs, by extension, might be too.
Pubs are increasingly seen as leisure outlets and community centres, however. That is particularly true of rural areas, where they are often the only places where residents can meet each other. Following the Government's decision to relax the licensing laws, more people below the age of 18 will visit pubs with their parents. The Government's decision acknowledges pubs' increasing role as places where families can spend time together. With 65,000 pubs in this country, we have an excellent opportunity to increase the success of the lottery system. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this subject.

Mr. Pendry: Supporting new clauses moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is becoming a bit of a habit. He has already touched on most of the points that I wanted to make.
Members of the Committee will recall that I argued that it was nonsense that bingo and the pools should be required to observe a lower age limit of 18 but that the Government should allow the sale of lottery tickets to 16-year-olds. The case for equalisation was overwhelming then and it is overwhelming still.
There are of course two ways of bringing about parity. The Government have chosen the wrong way, and I hope that they have realised their mistake in lowering the age to 16 instead of levelling it up to 18. If consistency and fair competition were truly the Government's objectives, it would be better to confine the sale of lottery tickets to those aged 18 and above, the age observed in almost all other forms of gambling. There is a legitimate anxiety that, if the age limit is lowered to 16, some young people may become susceptible to harder forms of gambling because of their involvement with the national lottery.
The attraction of a national lottery is not only that by buying a ticket one helps a good cause but that, if one is lucky, one could win a prize, which could be very huge if the national lottery is the success that the Government hope. I do not need to tell hon. Members that the teenage years, especially the years between 16 and 18, are extremely formative and impressionable. Although the national lottery is hardly an addictive form of gambling, it may tempt young people to experiment with other forms. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioned that.
Those of us who represent areas of great social deprivation are aware of the susceptibility of some young people, especially those who are out of work and who may see gambling as an easy way out of current difficulties and social boredom. The temptation to relieve despair through gambling, like the temptation to ease hopelessness through drinking, should not be taken lightly.
Reducing the age at which one can be allowed to gamble to 16, although not a momentous change, will make it much easier to encourage young people to take up gambling as a recreational pursuit. The Opposition believe that such additional encouragement is undesirable. The national lottery ought to be a means of raising new money

for good causes, and exploiting the vulnerability of young people is quite contrary to the ethos that it is supposed to represent.
Opposition Members have always maintained that the limit should be set at 18—we argued that in Committee —in line with other forms of gambling. I hope that the Government realise that it was foolish to reduce the age to 16 instead of keeping it at 18. I hope that the Minister will not reply from a civil service brief and that he has reflected on the rather silly approach taken by the Government so far. If we seek uniformity and age parity, we should accept the new clause so ably moved by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.

Mr. Maxton: I am always reluctant to disagree with my Front-Bench spokesmen, but on this occasion I am afraid that I must do so, because I do not think that we should support the new clause. I shall approach the matter from a slightly different viewpoint from that taken by some hon. Members. The new clause would place an undesirable burden on those who will sell national lottery tickets. I have teenage children and I do not know how anyone is expected to be sure by appearance that a person who enters an establishment that sells lottery tickets is 16, 17 or 18.

Mr. Corbett: What about pubs?

Mr. Maxton: That is exactly the problem faced by many publicans. I am a rather old-fashioned believer in civil liberties, and that is why I have reservations about the fact that many pubs are insisting that young people produce some sort of identification to prove that they are 18. That is a dangerous road for those who believe in civil liberties because, increasingly, people who go to a newsagents to buy a lottery ticket will be asked to produce some sort of identification. I have a son who will soon be 19.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend looks so young.

Mr. Maxton: I know. My son finds that not even a driving licence is now accepted in a pub as proof that he is over 18 because he could have obtained it at the age of 17. That creates pressure for some form of identity card; some of us believe that that is a dangerous route and we will resist any attempt to go down it. Even at 16 there will be some difficulties, but it is easier to determine that a person is younger than 16 than to distinguish between a 16 and an 18-year-old. I hope that the new clause will not be pushed to a vote.

Mr. Davidson: It is with some trepidation that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who supported me earlier. There will be some difficulty about defining age whether the limit is 16 or 18. However, in the search for profit, some people will sell outside the limit. Hon. Members have mentioned shopkeepers who distribute pools coupons to make money. Youngsters who are about two years below the statutory age will be sold tickets. If we accept a lower age limit of 16, lottery tickets will frequently be sold to 14-year-olds and youngsters of about that age.
There are already difficulties in my area because under-age youngsters are able to buy cigarettes. The law is clear, but shopkeepers will do that irrespective of the age limit. It is inappropriate to set the limit at 16 because that


will lead to sales to those who are 14 years of age or younger. To them, buying a lottery ticket would be a sign of maturity.

Mr. Maxton: People of 16 can engage in what may be the biggest lottery in life by getting married. Why on earth should they not be allowed to buy lottery tickets?

Mr. Davidson: We have never opposed the idea of people having to produce identification before they get married. Of course, people are not required to produce identification before producing children, although the Government are tackling that in another way.
We should support the amendment because there is a real danger that financial pressures on the Director General of the National Lottery will lead to a search to expand the market for lottery tickets. That will include targeting ever younger children.

Mr. Key: I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends know who will look silly if the amendment is pressed to a Division. This is a matter of judgment and I respect the fact that people will reach different judgments on the degree of supervision to be imposed on people of 18 or 16. It is hard to understand why the Opposition are so keen to support the pools industry but wish to restrict the sale of tickets, and therefore of pools coupons, to 18-year-olds; that is the logic of what they are saying.
My judgment is clear. I am proud to say that I have come to the debate with a civil service brief because my civil servants have worked extremely hard for a year to get the Bill right, and it is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have decided that 16 is the sensible age.
The House has heard thoughtful, sensible, down-to-earth and common-sense contributions by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on this topic. When faced with the difficult problem of the sale of goods to young people, do we make it easier or more difficult? My judgment is that, if the amendment is accepted, it will increase the problem, and that would be silly.
We heard a great deal about advertisements in the United States. But this is not the United States and such advertisements could not appear here. Our proposals are sufficient to control misleading or scurrilous advertising of the type that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) took great relish in describing to us. The Advertising Standards Authority ensures truthfulness, and clause 12 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about information that must be given. The powers of the director general to license operators under clause 5 and games under clause 6 also provide protection.
Some pools companies have had occasional lapses of discretion in advertising. A few years ago, Littlewoods had to withdraw a poster campaign, based on a poster that said, "You'll never work again", because it was thought distasteful. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is happy to support an industry that made an error of judgment like that.
The new clause shows a patronising attitude. It is suggested that although at 16 one can get married, leave school and get a job and at 17 one can fight for one's country, one should not be able to buy a national lottery ticket before one is 18. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill

said that the question of age limits was discussed extensively in Committee. He said that we had argued that we should logically take the age limit for small lotteries, 16, to be the age limit for buying national lottery tickets, but that he disagreed with that.
Under clause 12, the Secretary of State can regulate for the age limit on buying national lottery tickets. I told the Committee that I was minded to set the age at 16. If the limit were set differently from that for other lotteries, retailers who might be selling both national lottery and other lottery tickets would have a hopeless task in trying to apply two different age limits. They might be put off dealing in different types of lottery and that would lead to the kind of exclusive deals about which hon. Members are concerned.
Is the hon. Member for Mossley Hill minded to increase the limit for charity lotteries, thereby preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from buying raffle tickets, the mainstay of many church functions, let alone ward political functions and football and other sports clubs everywhere? All those small lottery operators would be done a grave disservice.
It is logical to set the age limit for the pools at the same level, not least from a practical point of view, because often retailers will be selling both lottery tickets and pools coupons side by side. The Secretary of State would be able to change the age limit that he sets for the national lottery in the light of experience, should there be proven to be any of the dire consequences that the hon. Gentleman cranked out so predictably. The new clause is unnecessary, patronising and impractical, and should be rejected.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) drew my attention to the problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has spoken forcefully this evening and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) has also spoken to me—the anomaly with pubs. I am glad that the matter has been raised. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we were minded to regulate under clause 12 to ban the sales of tickets in pubs and licensed premises. In Committee, I was subject to representations on that point, and I have received further representations.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced potential changes in the regulation of pubs which might fundamentally change the character of the public house. I know that people were jesting when they talked about the local community centre, but they have a good point in respect of rural areas. The pub is often the focus of community life. After due consideration, we have concluded that it would not be right to regulate the sale of tickets in pubs, but that we should leave it up to the operator. A potential operator might consider that using the pub was one way to reach remote areas where the Pope is the focus—[Laughter.] Well, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will no doubt be delighted to hear that the Pope is the focus of rural life, as indeed he probably is in some areas, but I meant to say pub.
The pub might not be an appropriate point of sale, as the Pope might not be, if, for example, there were a preponderance of gambling and amusement machines on the premises. However, it is right that such decisions should be for the operators, in the light of the changing nature of public houses, and I hope that the way in which we have responded to the representations that have


sensibly been made will ensure that that goes smoothly. Therefore, I hope that the House will join me in rejecting the new clause.

Mr. Alton: I am surprised that the son of a former Bishop of Truro should confuse the 'Pope with a pub, but I suppose that the Minister can be forgiven that lapse. I am also surprised that he was so trenchant in his opposition to the new clause and so strident in his language. He waxed lyrical in his enthusiasm to promote the sale of tickets to those aged between 16 and 18. It is nonsense to reduce to absurdity the argument that, because someone buys a raffle ticket, it is all right for him to go out and do all those other things as well.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that, because people could get married at 16, it was all right to encourage them to gamble at 16. Many people think that 16 is rather a young age at which to make such a major decision about the rest of one's life. People who get married at such a young age, more often than people who come to such a decision later in their lives, would be wiser to wait longer. Perhaps it would be better if they did not decide so early.

Mr. Maxton: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It may be better if people wait before they get married, but is he seriously saying that we should pass a law insisting that 18 is the age at which people may get married? That is what he seems to suggest.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that that is not part of the new clause. In answer to his point about when people get married, I am merely saying that that is a young age at which to take such decisions. However, that does not negative the new clause, which deals specifically with the encouragement of gambling among young people. That is a different argument about a different proposition.
I am surprised that the Government should show such enthusiasm for doing this. The Minister said that it would be impossible to enforce the new clause, but the same argument can be applied to the sale of alcohol and to bookmakers in betting shops. They already have to distinguish between customers on the basis of age. There is also the nonsense that it is not possible to decide when somebody is aged 18, but it is possible to decide when a person is aged 16. Those are silly arguments, put forward in an attempt to discredit the new clause, which is not just about the technical question but about the principle of whether we should be encouraging gambling among young people.
I am grateful that the House has given the matter some consideration. I hope that the Government will reflect, even if not in the context of the Bill, on the general problem of young people, many of whom gamble far too easily and readily and often steal to raise the money to feed their gambling addiction. If the national lottery does anything to stimulate that problem even further, its promoters will have a great deal to answer for. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

LIMITED CARRY-FORWARD OF DIVIDENDS IN POOL COMPETITIONS

'.—(1) Schedule 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (registered pool promoters) shall have effect with the following amendments.

(2) In paragraph 14 (which enables the rules applicable to competitions promoted by registered pool promoters to contain certain provisions as to prizes)—

(a) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(bb) that, where no competitor makes the most successful forecasts possible (taking into account the rules of the competition and the outcome of the events on which it depends), the highest prize, or shares in that prize, shall not be paid or be paid in full, and that the amount which would have been payable in the case of winning bets qualifying for, or for shares in, that prize shall be applied in increasing the amount payable in the case of winning bets qualifying for, or for shares in, the highest prize in any of the following three competitions promoted by the promoter;"; and
(b) for "sub-paragraph (c)" there shall be substituted "sub-paragraph (bb) or (c)".

(3) In paragraph 20 (statement to be sent by pool promoter to accountant after competition) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

"(bb) the total amount of prizes or shares in prizes not payable or payable in full and applicable as mentioned in paragraph 14(bb) of this Schedule;".

(4) In paragraph 21(1) (statement to be sent by pool promoter competitors after competition), in paragraph (a) for "the aggregate prizes in" there shall be substituted "the aggregate prizes in all those competitions (whether or not payable or payable in full)".

(5) In paragraph 23 (annual statement to be sent by pool promoter to accountant and registering authority)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for "the aggregate prizes in" there shall be substituted "the aggregate prizes in those competitions (whether or not payable or payable in full)";
(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after "competitions" there shall be inserted "(whether or not payable or payable in full)";

(6) In section 7 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (pool betting duty) after subsection (4) (which provides that the expenses and profits taxable under subsection (1)(b) of that section are to exclude expenses provided out of stake money) there shall be inserted—
(4A) Where any amount applied in accordance with paragraph 14(bb) of Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in increasing the amount payable in the case of winning bets qualifying for, or for shares in, prizes would not (apart from this subsection) be treated for the purposes of subsection (4) as provided for out of the stake money, it shall be so treated.".'.—[Sir Malcolm Thornton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are some good reasons why I and other hon. Members from both sides of the House have tabled the new clause, which is supported by scores of hon. Members from all parties. It would allow the limited carrying forward of dividend, otherwise known as roll-up, in pools competitions. The Government have some way to go before we can believe, with confidence, that the pools industry will be able to compete effectively and fairly with the national lottery. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced in Committee the Government's decision to


legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops and that is a welcome development and certainly a move in the right direction.
However, the change in the law on the sale of pools coupons in shops and the right to sponsor television and radio programmes that are unrelated to football results are simply not enough in themselves to put the industry on an equal and competitive footing with the national lottery. On the basis of what my hon. Friend told the Committee, the lottery is to be allowed to roll up its prize three times, whereas the pools are prohibited from doing so at all.
The new clause provides that in a week in which no one claims the maximum number of points on a treble chance coupon, the promoters may be permitted to carry forward a proportion of the first dividend prize to the subsequent competition. The number of occasions on which the roll-up may be permitted will be limited to three—the same number as my hon. Friend the Minister said would apply to the lottery.
This is an important issue to the pools industry because rolling up the prize over a number of weeks is an extremely effective means of increasing the game's attractiveness to potential customers. A game that is allowed to roll up its prizes will naturally become more successful and popular than competitive games that are not allowed to do so. It is the classical means by which state lotteries abroad have the market rigged in their favour at the expense of other soft, long-odds gambling.
No one doubts that the pools and the national lottery are equivalent forms of gambling. That point was made by the Select Committee and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee:
They are a form of low-stake, long-odds gambling from which the threat of social harm is small.
That is why the Government tabled an amendment to reduce the age of pools entrants to 16, to match that for the national lottery. The two forms are so similar that they must, by the rules of the marketplace, compete for similar markets. There is nothing wrong with that. The Government have always stood for free and open competition and I hope that they always will.
I tabled new clause 9 because I feel strongly about that issue. It seeks to allow the pools to compete freely and effectively with their closest competitor, which is something that my hon. Friend the Minister must welcome.
In Committe, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made similar points on a roll-up amendment. His words echoed many of my own sentiments:
I tabled the amendment in the spirit of fair play. I seek no advantage to the pools companies but parity on roll-up. Similar to national lottery prizes, pools prize money could be rolled up for three weeks.
I hope that my hon. Friend feels able to support new clause 9.
I have read reports that a number of Cabinet colleagues of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have lent their support to allowing the pools a limited roll-up. In an article in The Guardian on 21 April, my right hon and learned Friend the Home Secretary viewed the existing restrictions on pools operations as "unnecessary and bureaucratic". My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland are also reportedly

concerned about likely job losses if the pools are not allowed to maintain their markets through fair and free competition. Allowing the industry a limited roll-up would be a big step towards ensuring that.
I am also concerned about the job losses that would be generated by a pools industry that was robbed unfairly of its customers by having the market rigged against it. As the constituency Member of Parliament for Vernons on Merseyside and for many of the city's thousands of Littlewoods employees, I would regard it as unforgivable if my constituents lost their jobs after their companies' products were put out of business solely because of Government legislation. I am concerned not just about Liverpool; the pools industry is a healthy and competitive industry that employs thousands of people in areas of significant unemployment throughout the United Kingdom, in particular, in Glasgow and Cardiff.
Doing the pools is a great British institution. In his excellent speech on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of the pools as one of the enduring characteristics of British life that must continue regardless of how far we progress towards the European single market. He said:
Fifty years from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers.
I am sure that we all agree with those sentiments.
If the lottery is to be allowed a limited roll-up, so should the pools. The reasons are that they would both be competing for similar markets; are both long-odds, low-stake competitions; they pose a low risk of social harm; and they generate sizeable sums of money for good causes—the pools more so than the national lottery, as a result of the Government's decision to set the lottery prize fund at 50 per cent.
No sensible person can seriously accept that there is a distinction between the pools and the lottery on the basis that one is run for good causes and the other for commercial gain. That cannot be so when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes 37·5 per cent. of pools turnover in tax and the pools donate a further 10 per cent. to good causes in sport and arts and take less than 3 per cent. profit.
I urge the House to accept new clause 9. The pools companies and the national lottery can and should be allowed to co-exist on fair and level terms. As the Bill stands, they will not.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: We recognise and welcome the progress that was made in Committee. On Second Reading, we argued that there should broadly be a level playing field between the national lottery and the pools industry. In that regard, the Bill certainly left the Committee in a more acceptable state than it arrived. I congratulate all those responsible.
It is good news that pools coupons will be legally available in retail outlets, including licensed premises and betting shops. That move sensibly brings the letter of the law into practice and forms an essential element of measures necessary to ensure that the pools are given a reasonable opportunity to compete with the national lottery. That is not to say that we have been completely reassured that the pools will be able to compete on fair and level terms. The change in respect of shops takes them some way towards that, but, as the Government know, there remain a number of other important changes to be made to allow the pools to compete fairly.
Allowing the pools a limited roll-up is one. If the national lottery is to be allowed to roll up a prize three times, as it will be, so should the pools companies. We welcome new clause 9 for its attempt to redress the balance. The fact that hon. Members of all three main parties have put their names to it signals the strength of feeling on the issue.
The words of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have been quoted on many occasions, and they were particularly important in respect of establishing a level playing field. The Government claim to believe in fair competition. If that is the case, I hope that they will demonstrate their belief this evening by supporting the amendment.
We are well aware of the dangers with roll-up, and in other circumstances we would like to have seen that practice denied to both the national lottery and the pools. We heard much in Committee about the detrimental social effects of the rolling up of large prizes and the frenzied ticket buying that that generates. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) outlined the dangers. He warned that lotto mania can lead to huge surges in lottery ticket buying in the days leading up to a draw. We are also aware of the syndicates of professional gamblers who exploit a rollover system through bulk ticket buying. If the national lottery is allowed a limited rollover, so should the pools. As my hon. Friends have forcefully argued today, there are too many pools employees' jobs at risk in Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and London for us to accept such unequal and unfair treatment.
As we all know, there is no intrinsic difference between the pools and the national lottery. For that reason, there can be no sound economic rationale for discriminating between the way that each is allowed to operate in the marketplace. To do so would be contrary to the principles of free and fair competition. The pools are for a long-odds chance of winning a large prize for a small, usually consistent, stake, on the basis of a modest, once a week bet. That can in no way be regarded as a harder form of gambling than the national lottery.
If contributions to good causes are a determining factor in deciding whether one gambling activity is softer than another, the pools also make a substantial contribution. If, of course, there were any future circumstances in which roll-up could be restricted further, we should wholeheartedly support it and would seek similar restrictions for pools roll-up also. Until we obtain that guarantee, we shall support new clause 9. That will ensure that the pools companies and their employees can compete effectively alongside the national lottery.
Anything less than a clear commitment from the Minister today that he accepts the underlying principle in new clause 9 will be unacceptable to this side of the House. If the Minister finds that the principle is one that the Government can accept but that he wants to bring it back to another place, we shall accept that. However, we will not—nor will many hon. Members on both sides of the House—accept anything less. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond positively and accept new clause 9.

7 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to support new clause 9. I am also grateful for the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
The Bill has come a long way since it was considered in Committee. Hon. Members have commented on the fact that people aged 16 will now be able to participate in either the pools or the national lottery and that pools coupons will be made available through retail outlets. I, more than many hon. Members who are in the Chamber, am grateful for that announcement. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my retail outlet was one of the 20,000 that distributes pools coupons until I sat on the Standing Committee, when it was pointed out to me that it was illegal.
Immediately I started to look for the grey areas. I found only black and white, however, and therefore had to cease distribution of pools coupons in my retail outlet in Swansea. I cannot wait for the day when the Bill becomes an Act so that once again we can distribute pools coupons. The Government have gone a long way towards altering the Bill in such a way as to enable the distribution of pools coupons by retail outlets once again to become a reality.
As for roll-up, I, too, was not convinced that a £2 million prize, rolled up three times to £6 million, would be any more attractive than the £2 million prize. When I put a £1 stake on Virginia Wade winning Wimbledon and won £16, I was absolutely delighted. I had to sit down for about three hours to get my senses back. If I won £2 million, I should probably have to be put on a life support machine.
We must be mindful of the fact that many small pools companies exist alongside Littlewoods. They would be grateful for the opportunity to roll up their prizes so that their top prizes were more attractive in the weeks when no one won the top prize outright.
The pools industry is extremely important to this country. It has a turnover of just under £1 billion. The Exchequer benefits to the tune of a third of a billion pounds in pools betting duty. The Sports Council and the Arts Council receive £65 million. Many rural constituencies, such as mine, benefit from having this sum of money to distribute. Moreover, the Football Trust receives £36·5 million.
The creation of the national lottery will have a significant impact on jobs, certainly in the north-west. I know that many of the hon. Members who are in the Chamber are equally concerned about its impact on jobs. We are talking about 6,500 full-time jobs and 80,000 part-time jobs. The 80,000 part-time pools collectors do not receive massive sums of money for the coupons that they distribute, but what they do receive—£30 or £40, or even less—is an important part of their total income. We should ensure, therefore, that that part of their income is preserved.
I support new clause 9 not only because it would help to preserve jobs, but because I believe that there should be competition. All of us want the national lottery to be a great success, with tickets sold and the profits invested in good causes. To enable the national lottery to be enthusiastic about selling as many tickets as it possibly can, we must ensure that, for it to remain enthusiastic about selling tickets, there is competition.
The Conservative party is the party of free enterprise and competition. We want to ensure that the national lottery does not have a monopoly and does not rest on its laurels. I have sufficient faith in the pools companies to believe that they will try to ensure that they do not disappear. Both they and the national lottery will benefit from fair competition. Then the good causes to which I have referred will also benefit.
The point was made in Committee that we did not want a level playing field to be created for the pools companies and the national lottery. It is not so much a question of a level playing field as of adjacent playing fields. We want to ensure that one of the players is not kicked off the pitch and that both playing fields can exist side by side, with healthy competition between them. By giving life to one form of gambling, the national lottery, we should not kill off another form of gambling, the pools. Both are useful as a means of raising funds and creating jobs. I hope that the principle of new clause 9 will be accepted.

Mr. Alton: On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
I am also minded to outlaw the discounting of tickets and limiting rollover, which will help to avoid abuse."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 722.]
It would have been better if no allowance for rollover had been made in the Bill, for the reasons which the Secretary of State advanced on Second Reading—that rollover allows syndicates to develop and leads to abuse. We should be concerned about the fact that rolling up prizes could lead to the discrediting of the national lottery and possibly, in due course, to the discrediting of the football pools.
I shall support the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) because I believe that, if the provision is being made available for the lottery. It should also be made available for the football pools. However, it would have been better if the principle of equality were applied by allowing neither to roll over their prizes. Of course, it is still not too late for the Government to consider that idea.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) rightly said that there should be fair and free competition but not a monopolistic practice. The lottery should certainly not be allowed to set out like a whale to swallow the minnows in the sea around it. It would be highly undesirable if the Bill were to complete its Report stage with provisions allowing only the national lottery but not the pools to roll over.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also mentioned the size of prizes. I am very apprehensive about such large prizes being offered. The devastating effect on the life of an average family of winning such large prizes has not been properly considered. I would prefer more modest prizes to be awarded, perhaps on a wider basis with smaller amounts of money being given to a larger number of winners. I am worried that we are feeding the idea that people should always want bigger, faster, better and more, which seems to be a feature of our society. It may be rather old-fashioned to say so, but we should not deliberately stimulate such an idea. I hope that the Government will consider that issue before the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am glad to have caught your eye at this stage in the proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I may be able to help the House to reach a conclusion a little more speedily.
Choosing my words carefully when speaking to amendments ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who has made a similar case today, I said that the Government remained to be persuaded that the rollover facility for the pools was necessary or desirable. In particular, I said that the circumstances in which the pools companies proposed to roll over prize money did not seem to be altogether fair and were certainly quite different from those in which the rollover would operate for the national lottery.
My hon. Friend's amendments would also have given the pools companies a free hand to roll over prize money in any circumstances they cared to invent, the only restriction being a limit of three in the number of successive rollovers. Had we accepted the amendments, the result would have been not fair competition between the pools and the national lottery but a clear competitive edge for the pools.
New clause 9, ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), responds helpfully to some of the criticisms that I made in Committee. By providing for more limited rollover facilities, the new clause is a move in the right direction, but I regret that it does not go far enough. Let me take a few minutes to explain my continuing reservations.
We have been told by the big three pools companies that, under their present rules, the rollover arrangements set out in the new clause would produce six rollovers a year for Littlewoods, about a dozen for Vernons and perhaps 26 for Zetters. Of course, those figures are estimates; the actual number of rollovers could turn out to be higher. In any event, it would be open to the pools companies to change their rules of competition to produce more frequent rollovers. Let us compare that with what is likely to happen to the national lottery.
The experience of most other European state lotteries suggests that rollovers are used sparingly. Single rollovers might happen perhaps once or twice a year whereas successive rollovers would be extremely rare. We expect the operator of the national lottery to set the odds so as to produce a similar pattern in this country. The operator will, regardless, need to obtain prior clearance for the rules for any particular lottery from the Director General Office of the National Lottery.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister cites only the European experience. When I, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and other members of the Select Committee went to America, we found that rollover occurred every week. People were convinced that that whipped up the frenzy about the big prize on Saturday night and that that was what brought in the money.

Mr. Lloyd: I accept that there are other ways of running national lotteries. Most lotteries abroad have rollovers only twice or three times a year, which is what we expect in this country, but I accept that other countries do things differently.
As I was saying, the pools companies would be free to set their own rules. However, the director general will want to ensure—I direct my remarks especially to the hon.


Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—that the rules are fair to the participants, and he will also be aware of public feeling against excessive first prizes. That point was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
New clause 9 would not, therefore, produce the level playing field sought by so many hon. Members. The national lottery, operating under the close supervision of Oflot, would roll over prize money perhaps once or twice a year. In contrast, the football pools would have rollovers six or more times a year and would have a free hand to change their rules to engineer more frequent rollovers. In such circumstances, the national lottery would—to repeat a phrase that has already been used—have the market rigged against it.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: This is the first time that I have heard that argument. I understood that rollover occurred when a prize was not won in the draw, whether on the pools or in the lottery. How can one predict with such apparent accuracy how many rollovers there will be on the pools or in the lottery?

Mr. Lloyd: By chance. There are odds which can be predicted to a certain extent in the way that the rules are drawn up. The rules which the pools company suggested to us initially, and which I said in Committee I did not find very convincing or fair, meant that if there were one winner, he would receive the whole prize. However, if there were two winners, instead of them halving the prize between them, half would be rolled over for the following week and the two winners would each get a quarter of the prize. That was one suggestion.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioned spiralling jackpots. The fear was expressed in Committee that we could be turning the United Kingdom into a Las Vegas island. The new clause would allow that to happen but only with the pools, not with the national lottery. It would stoke up jackpots without let or hindrance. There would be pressure for the national lottery to compete and to ensure that it too had rollovers at least six times a year, perhaps more. The Bill could come to be seen as a Trojan horse that unleashed an explosion of jackpots—if jackpots can explode—for which I do not think the public would thank us in the long run.
For those reasons, I cannot accept new clause 9 in its present form. However, the passion and eloquence behind and in front of me, some of which I feel is still pent up and not yet unleashed—perhaps it will be unleashed after I have sat down—is very compelling. I am glad to be able to say that I am convinced that there is a good case for allowing the football pools to operate limited rollovers similar to the national lottery.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, those who have spoken in favour of the new clause and those who would have liked to have done so that we intend to introduce our own proposals in another place to ensure that where rollover is involved the pools will enjoy similar freedom and opportunity to those enjoyed by the national lottery. I think that that was what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) wanted.
In view of my assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he has achieved his primary purpose in

tabling the new clause and will be willing to withdrawn it so that the Government can introduce one in another place in due course.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: Perhaps I can assist the House and avoid the unseemly spectacle of so much pent-up emotion being unleashed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is correct. I seek parity between the pools and the lottery, and nothing more. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

POWERS AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR GENERAL

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe the powers and duties of the Director General under this Part; and such regulations shall be subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) The Director General shall exercise his functions under this Part in the manner he considers the most likely to secure—

(a) that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, with all due propriety, and
(b) that the interests of every participant in a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery are protected.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), the Director General shall in exercising those functions do his best to secure that the net proceeds of the National Lottery are as great as possible.

(4) In subsection (3) "the net proceeds of the National Lottery" means the sums that are paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of section 5(6).'.—[Sir Ivan Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 123, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 18.

No. 125, in clause 5, page 2, line 20, leave out 'body corporate', and insert 'charitable foundation.'.

No. 124, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 126, in clause 6, page 3, line 7, leave out 'body corporate' and insert 'charitable foundation.'.

No. 127, in clause 11, page 5, leave out lines 23 to 29.

No. 128, in clause 19, page 9, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 129, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'The Director-General.'.

No. 130, in clause 20, page 9, line 15, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 131, in clause 22, in page 10, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 132, in clause 24, in page 10, line 28, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 133, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 134, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'by order'.

No. 135, in page 10, line 37, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 136, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.

No. 137, in page 10, line 44, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General.'.

No. 138, in page 11, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.

No. 139, in clause 25, page 11, line 6, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.

No. 140, in page 11, line 6, leave out
'by order amend section 20(3) so as to'.

No. 141, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'there' and insert in section 20(3)'.

No. 142, in page 11, line 19, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.

No. 143, in page 11, line 19, leave out
'by order amend subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 21 so as'.

No. 144, in clause 26, page 11, line 21, leave out 'to'.

No. 145, in page 11, line 23, leave out first 'to'.

No. 146, in page 11, line 25, leave out 'to'.

No. 147, in page 11, line 26, leave out 'to'.

No. 148, in page 11, line 28, leave out 'amendment' and insert 'change'.

No. 149, in page 11, line 28, leave out 'the amended subsection' and insert 'it'.

No. 150, in page 11, leave out lines 37 to 42.

No. 151, in page 11, line 44, leave out 'an order', and insert 'decisions'.

No. 152, in page 11, line 45, leave out 'order' and insert 'decisions'.

No. 153, in page 12, leave out lines 1 to 5.

No. 154, in clause 27, page 12, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.

No. 155, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'by order'.

No. 156, in clause 29, page 13, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert 'Director General.'.

No. 157, in page 13, leave out 'the order under section 26(1) mentioned in that paragraph has been made' and insert
'action has been taken in accordance with section 26(1).'.

No. 158, in page 13, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'action.'.

No. 159, in clause 58, page 22, line 20, leave out
'on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different dates may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes',
and insert
'six months after receiving Royal Assent.'.

No. 197, in schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after 'staff, insert 'and advisers'.

No. 160, in page 24, line 30, leave out from 'determine' to end of line 32.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I can without immodesty claim some part in the conception of the thoroughly desirable institution of a national lottery that will benefit such good causes as the arts, sport, heritage and charities. Therefore, I have a kind of parental interest in the Bill. However, I am alarmed at the direction in which it looks as though the legislation is moving.
Before I explain my reasons, may I say how immensely grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who, when he was Home Secretary, took up the idea of a national lottery for good causes, and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the imagination that he showed in making the national lottery an election commitment. I am also grateful to those of my right hon. Friends who have changed their minds on

the matter and now support the idea, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and to the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), for turning the idea into a reality and for dealing with everyone's concerns so sensitively as the Bill has passed through its Committee stage and is now passing through its remaining stages. I hope that my right hon. Friends will treat what I am about to say with their customary consideration and seriousness, and that nothing that I say will be taken as diminishing their achievement.
In a nutshell, I am unhappy to see the national lottery developing alarming features which are not at all what I had in mind. First, there is far too much involvement by the Secretary of State and the Government, and too little independent arm's-length control without Government interference. Secondly, big business will be involved. What I had in mind was a lottery sponsored and supervised by the Government but run in all its essential elements not by big business but by a charitable foundation.
I was not permitted to serve on the Standing Committee, doubtless on the usual ground that the fewer people serving on a Standing Committee who have any knowledge of the subject the better, because such people would delay the proceedings with questions and suggestions for improvement. Even after the closer consideration that the Bill has been given in Committee, it is still beginning to look very different from what I had in mind.
I am encouraged to know that I am not alone in believing that the Government should keep the lottery at arm's length, and keep it as charitable as they can. Paragraph 13.62 of the report of the Royal Commission that considered a lottery from 1976 to 1978 said:
One of the most appealing features of an independently administered but state sponsored national lottery for good causes is that it escapes or by-passes the normal Government decision making procedures for resource allocation. In practice, a Government of any party, subject to day to day public and political pressures, finds it impossible to devote more than meagre resources to good causes of the kind that are desirable rather than essential. But the paradox is that while each individual cause may not be essential, it is essential for the health of our community that some resources are devoted to such purposes. There is a crucial need in our society for a source of substantial funds to provide support of a kind with which any Government experiences great difficulty. The objective should not be to replace the function of central Government but rather to fill the gap created by the inevitable disappearance, in a society where the accumulation of private wealth has become much more difficult, of private support of worthy causes on a large scale. (There will be no new Nuffield Foundations.) The proceeds of a national lottery should not only be allocated outside the normal Government machinery: they should be immune, subject to annual scrutiny by Parliament, from Government influence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, when he made his contribution to the matter, that he—I cannot for the moment find the quotation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. May I assist the hon. and learned Gentleman? He is presumably looking up his quotation about the powers and duties of the director general. That would help us forward.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Oh yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course I am addressing the matter of the director general and the charitable foundation, which are the subject


matter of the amendments selected by Madam Speaker. I am not wandering one inch away from that, but I must—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For a few seconds the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to be wandering anywhere. I was just trying to help him.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That was very kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that a little good humour will leaven what might otherwise might be the tedium of my argument. I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, the former Home Secretary, also supported in his speeches the idea that the national lottery should be kept at arm's length from Government.
On the second limb of my amendments, the Royal Commission said:
In this way a public body which we suggest should be called the National Lottery Board, analogous to the charitable foundations established in former yews by individuals, would help many good causes across a wide spectrum of different activities. A national lottery for good causes is, therefore, a rare opportunity to improve, indirectly if not directly, the quality of British life.
The Royal Commission had in mind a charitable foundation, not a lottery run by big business.
Sadly, although those two matters are fundamental to the direction that the national lottery will take, I believe that no amendment along the lines that I have suggested was tabled in Committee, nor was the point extensively argued or discussed, if it was discussed at all. Unfortunately, when I made my speech on Second Reading I did not remember that I had been called at a time when there was a 10-minute limit on speeches, so just as I was about to voice my concerns about the Bill, I was stopped. If the Official Report is correct, I was stopped a minute before my time. Had I had that extra minute I would have been able to float the subjects and they would have been taken up in Committee. That is why I have been left to table the amendments and the new clause, which I hope the Government will consider.
I believe that the Government should be more at arm's length from the lottery, because what is needed in that great enterprise—it is an exciting, fun enterprise, which we hope will stimulate the British people's imagination—is not the dead hand of the state, which the Government have turned away from everywhere else, but the imaginative stimulation of an independent decision-making procedure.
An agency is needed. In every other area, we are moving towards agencies at arm's length, agencies with directors general, and we should not be inhibited from following here the same process which we think is so important in many other areas of our political life.
So long as the Secretary of State has control of the purse strings, the state lottery will be vulnerable to the greedy and lustful attentions of any future hard-pressed Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that Conservative Chancellors will not be hard-pressed or greedy as the years move on, but we cannot guarantee that that will be the position for all time.
It was the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley not to substitute lottery money for money that might be raised by taxation. He said in the House that he was against additionality. He said:
Once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion a year for good causes. I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money

provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes. Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the national health service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community and must continue to be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way." —[Official Report, 6 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 563.]
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the way in which I have delivered what would have been a perfect delivery coming from him.
7.30 pm
The point is this. Where is my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley? He is no longer Home Secretary and no longer a Minister in charge of these matters. He is now on the relatively powerless Back Benches with the rest of us. Such undertakings cannot be guaranteed from Government to Government. All that can guarantee that there will be no additionality is the enshrinement of protective measures in the Bill. The most important of those would be to take away the power of the Secretary of State to control the running of the national lottery. That point should be enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Ian McCartney: There is already additionality in the national health service budget. Scanners, for example, are provided almost entirely through public subscription by the running of local lotteries and other activities. Of the 78 scanners purchased in England, 52 were purchased by the local community and the resources for them are still being provided by the local community. The Department of Health gives no money for the maintenance of those scanners. The problem raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is already happening. The Government should address themselves to his comments and should give some concrete commitment. If they do not, additionality will come into play in a range of other services.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I half agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I see no reason why the desire of the community to raise money for important equipment for its local hospital should be stopped, but I am concerned that no part of the essence of the national health service or of any such vital control activities should be funded out of the national lottery. Such areas should be funded out of taxation in the normal way and that should remain the case. There should be no temptation for the Government to use the national lottery for such purposes, and that is why I quoted the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. As the Minister then in charge of the lottery, he stated that view.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the relative powerlessness of Back-Bench Members. It was such relatively powerless hon. Members who secured from the Minister a valuable commitment, which is embodied in new clause 7, that bodies that receive funds from the national lottery will have to account wholly separately for the moneys they receive. Although that will not ring-fence the money in the way that some people would like, it will bring about total transparency so that all of us in the Chamber and people elsewhere can see how the funds are being used. We can then make our own comparison with Government funding.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is a substantial step forward, and I welcome it as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) has done. However, when the Minister turns to Back-Bench Members, whatever their power, and says, "It is vital for the maintenance of the national health service that we should decide to use some of the lottery money," will my hon. Friend go into the Lobby against the Government and against the party? He may well be as brave as some of my hon. Friends have been in the debates on the Maastricht treaty, but the point is that they are not winning. With the best will in the world, ring fencing cannot be achieved unless we take away some of the powers given to the Secretary of State. I say nothing against him personally, because I know that he will operate the lottery with as much good will as is humanly possible.
I have no doubt that the same undertaking that there would be no additionality was given about the Irish state lottery. But, as a journalist said in The Irish Times last week, the Irish lottery is accused of deviating
so far from the original intentions of providing funds for arts, sports and community development, and it has largely become a slush fund to buttress inadequate Exchequer spending.
I do not know how accurate that view is, but I believe that it shows that, six months or so into a national lottery, it can be easy for a modern Government to turn to the lottery to fund some of their necessary state expenditure.
We must realise that the more money is taken in tax from the lottery, the less will be available for art, for sport, for heritage and for charities. Irish state funding for sport was reduced dramatically shortly after the lottery started. The purposes of the lottery have been modified and sport has suffered. Ireland still does not have enough Olympic-sized swimming pools, and it has almost no large sports arenas. As Mary Harney, a prominent Irish politician, said last week at a conference in England on the national lottery, there is a need to make the lottery "politician-proof".
The lottery will be tax-productive enough without tax being deducted from the institution itself at source. It will generate thousands of jobs. It will make small businesses and corner shops more productive and thus keep them in existence. It will stimulate the sport, arts, heritage and construction industries. Increased taxes will roll in. If so much power is given to the Secretary of State that he is able to introduce taxation at source for the lottery, the good causes will lose out all along the line.
That is why I tabled amendments Nos. 123 and 127, with 24 consequential amendments. I suggest in those amendments that the powers given to the Secretary of State should be transferred to an arm's-length director general. Amendment No.124 seeks to delete the requirement that the licensee shall pay such sums of money to the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State shall from time to time require.
The new clause would strengthen the powers of the director general. I hope that I am not alone in preferring a national lottery that is not in the Government's pocket. If the public believe it to be a Government activity, they may say, "We have given already" when the lottery seller invites their participation. Sport, arts, heritage and charities will be the losers.
The reasons why I believe that the lottery should be run as a charitable foundation are linked to my first point, as

has been accepted in the grouping of amendments. People will support a charity, but they will be less willing to support the Exchequer. A charitable foundation properly led and guided by philanthropists can be better trusted to spend the money than a Government—even this Government—can be.
There are even more cogent reasons for having a charitable foundation rather than big business in control. The pools, which are big business, manage to devote only 27 per cent. of their take to prizes, while 32 per cent. of their turnover goes in expenses and profits.
A recent article in one of the national papers reported the expectations of prospective operators as being £100 million of profit a year. I have nothing against profit; our free enterprise system depends on it. However, if that profit diminishes the purposes of the national lottery, and if it deprives art, sport, heritage and the charities of £100 million a year, I am against it. We set up a national lottery so that the money should go to those causes.
The more big business becomes involved for profit, the more difficult it may prove to keep the workings of the national lottery free from abuse and scandal, either of which would destroy public confidence in the institution. Those involved in organised crime will be looking with greedy eyes at the profits of lotteries. A charitable foundation, properly run and controlled, will make their intervention less likely.
For those reasons, I have tabled amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which provide that the director general may license a charitable foundation to run the lottery, and not a body corporate—in other words, big business. I hope that I will not be alone in preferring a charitable national lottery to a lottery run by big business. The public are more likely to respond if they feel that a profit is not being made out of giving for good causes.
The new national lottery that is shortly to be born will be an immense force for good. When it gets going, the quality of our nation's life will benefit immensely. Up to £3 billion of additional finance will be raised, and £1 billion will be available to use for good causes. There will be improvements in our sports, with more stadiums, running tracks and swimming pools; in our arts, with enormous scope for more theatres and music; in our heritage and the protection of our national history and buildings; and in our charities—although they may or may not be adversely affected by the idea of the national lottery.
Perhaps most important of all, our children will grow up in a society t hat is physically and mentally healthier. They will have less need to take to the streets or look to crime for diversion or peer approval. Our society will be calmer, safer, healthier and more stable.
We must get the national lottery right: it must not get off on the wrong tack. I believe that the dead hand of Government and the dangerous and unnecessary hand of big business in running what is essentially a chartiable undertaking—which will be enormous fun if it is properly run—are simply not desirable. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not have time to consider these important measures today, I hope that he will at least undertake to think further on them. I look forward to the issue being pursued further—if necessary—in the other place.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support new clause 10 and the amendments grouped with it, especially amendment No. 197, which provides that the director general may appoint


such staff as he may determine. The intention behind the new clause and amendments is to stop the Government hijacking the national lottery, which they seem to me to have done. The amendments provide the basis for a hands-off operation to be conducted by an independent charitable foundation totally independent of the Government rather than by a profit-making organisation —not least because such arrangements will generate more trust among those in the community.
The arguments are simple and straightforward. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has covered them, so I shall be brief. There can always be the imputation of political patronage in the allocations determined by a Government body or agency. That imputation is always there and will always be made. The hon. and learned Member for Burton quoted The Irish Times, which talked of the Irish lottery being used as a slush fund: political imputations were being made about the allocations. This Government sincerely and honestly trust this Government. We can say objectively that they are as pure as driven slush, but there is always the imputation that the funds will be used in that fashion unless an independent charitable foundation handles them. I want to ensure that that happens, and the amendments provide the basis for that.
7.45 pm
The amendments tackle a second problem—the danger that the Government will use the proceeds of the lottery as a substitute for funds allocated to the arts, sport or other purposes which should properly be sustained by the Government. The lottery promotion company, which put forward the idea of the establishment of a charitable body to run the lottery, has sensibly suggested that: the management of that arm's-length structure should include representatives of the Arts Council, the Sports Council, the National Trust and so on. That will ensure not only proper co-ordination but that the lottery money is not being used as a substitute for Arts Council or Sports Council funding. The lottery represents a great opportunity, but if lottery money is simply used as a substitute for other forms of spending that are properly the responsibility of the Government, that opportunity will be missed.
We must ensure that we are talking not about substitute spending but about additional spending. In that sense, an independent body—particularly a charitable foundation —could act as a court of appeal. These days, if one develops an enemy on the Arts Council, one does not get one's grant. if there is an additional source of funding in the form of an independent charitable body, there can be a court of appeal.
A further great advantage of a charitable body is that it will enable us to avoid both the bureaucracy of a governmental body and the profiteering orientation of a lottery run by a private company. We certainly want to avoid the high administrative expenditure attached to other bodies. Amazingly, the Arts Council costs £7·8 million a year in administrative expenses alone. The administration costs of the Sports Council are £9·5 million a year and the regional arts bodies cost £8·3 million a year to run, which means that 20 per cent. of the money that they distribute goes in administrative expenses.
It is crucial that the punters know that all the money is going to dedicated purposes, that the overheads are low and that the lottery is run by a charitable organisation that

they can trust. An independent charitable organisation can also give the lottery a long-term sense of purpose rather than its zig-zagging every which way in response to pressures from the Government.
The lottery represents one of the most exciting opportunities that we have had for many years. It gives us the opportunity to bring facilities to areas outside London, and I am anxious that money should be spent on a considerable scale outside London.
I used to go on holiday every year to a little village called Beg Meil in Brittany. It was enormously exciting to find that it had its own maison de culture—a centre for the performing arts, for exhibitions and for workshops and where facilities were made available for craftsmen and artists. All that was provided locally for a small community of about 1,000 people. Just think what the opportunities would be if we could provide in Grimsby the sort of auditorium that we need to attract theatre companies and to put on local performances, orchestral concerts, opera and pop. Most communities—indeed all communities—need such facilities, which could be provided from the funding that the national lottery will provide if it is efficiently and effectively run.
We have the opportunity of a cultural renaissance and provision of facilities on a huge scale outside London in communities which need them and which are deprived of them at present—if we run the national lottery on the proper basis for which the amendments provide.

Mr. Corbett: I shall be very brief. Ever since the idea of a national lottery was first mooted, there has been a debate about the best basis on which to establish it. The Library issued an intriguing note in January about the history of lotteries in Britain. It seems that they all collapsed in scandal. Although memories of such things may not he fresh in the minds of those in the Department of National Heritage, I have no doubt that they are fresh in the minds of those in the Home Office. If we are to run a lottery for the purposes set out in the Bill, all the best and sensible steps must be taken to safeguard the interests of those who participate in the lottery so that some of their ticket money goes to good causes.
I understand the amazement of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the fact that the Government have chosen to run the lottery almost as a nationalised lottery instead of relying on the private sector to deliver it with the necessary safeguards from this place.
We debated such issues on Second Reading and in Committee. We must ensure that the moneys generated by the national lottery in no way substitute for the proper investment of public funds in the good causes listed in the Bill. It is proper that there should be concern about that point.
We were frustrated when we tried to write that provision into the Bill, partly because it was not the Committee's concern to set the level at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dip his fingers into the price of tickets, and partly for the broad reason that levels of spending by Governments year on year will alter for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad. There is no reason why those levels should not change over time.
It is difficult to nail down something that is moving. We have now decided that we want what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has described as transparent accounts so that, as the hon.


Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, when we see the accounts and compare them with the level of Government spending in that financial year, we can draw our own conclusions about whether any substitution has taken place.
The ambition to avoid substitution is perfectly clear and I believe that that ambition is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. On those grounds, there is a great attraction in the new clause and the amendments suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. However, I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—I saw the Home Secretary in the Chamber a moment or two ago and perhaps he has been bought another pair of shoes—that it is not clear from the amendments whether the setting up of a charitable foundation would mean that no tax would be payable on the price of a ticket.
If there is any form of tax, one of the ambitions to make it impossible for the Government to engage in substitution would go out the window. While there is a tax, demonstably it can be altered over time. It can go up or down and I suspect that I know in which direction it is likely to go.
In an enterprise of this kind, we are concerned to ensure that there is more to it than simply the making of money. It is not that we are anti-profit, but the exercise is not wholly or mainly about putting dividends into the pockets of private people. The whole purpose of the lottery, as described by the Secretary of State, the Minister and others, is to raise new money for the good causes on the face of the Bill. If that is the case, I see risks in relying on the private sector to ensure that that is achieved in an open and accountable way, as is broadly proposed in the Bill, because the private sector will face other pressures.
The Minister may want to think very deeply about my next point before the lottery is up and running. Under the arrangements proposed by the Government, the lottery will rely to a large extent on the competence of the people in the distribution bodies who will need to build on and extend the skills that they presently exercise when handling money from Government by way of grants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred to what, on the face of it, appears to be a fairly high proportion of the moneys that go on administration. The Minister will be as aware as I am of criticisms which are made from time to time about what I would broadly describe as bureaucracy around the Arts Council and the Sports Council. Such claims are perhaps easily made.
The Sports Council, the Arts Council and similar bodies were designed to listen to, meet and represent the constituent bodies that are part of the particular sectors of sport, the arts or whatever. Trying to make such a body more accountable and democratic will cost more in administration than a purely commercial exercise. There is a price tag involved, although it need not be a large amount.
That is a price worth paying to achieve that involvement. It is also a price worth paying to have bodies that are open and accountable to those on whose behalf they were set up by the House and, in addition,

accountable to the House where—if not on the Floor of the House then through the Select Committee system—they can be asked to explain what they have been up to.
I do not want to finish before paying tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the work of Denis Vaughan, the executive director of the Lottery Promotion Company. He has been extremely persistent in his efforts to get a national lottery off the ground. He feels—I perhaps share this sentiment to some extent—that his case, which is reflected in the amendments, has not received a satisfactory response from the Government. The Government have not established whether their proposal is unarguably better than the charitable foundation route suggested.
Even at this late stage, and before the Bill goes to another place, the Government should take another look at the mechanics and return to the position as it was when we set out to put the Bill on the statute book. We should try to have a system that can persuade people that there is no intention to have substitution. Although I accept that, it must be demonstrated. Perhaps we can find a better way to demonstrate that to people whom we want to participate in the national lottery.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I welcome the tribute that the hon. Gentleman has bestowed on Denis Vaughan and the Lottery Promotion Company, but does he realise that Denis Vaughan is not alone in his view? Millions of people would prefer the lottery to be run as a charitable foundation, rather than as big business: they would like it to be a free foundation, rather than being in the grip of the Secretary of State and the director general.

Mr. Corbett: That is an important point, but, although the mechanics involved in achieving the desired result are not unimportant, the central issue is substitution. I would have been more impressed by the case that has been made had it been founded on the principle that the Chancellor should take no tax from a charitable foundation. That may or may not be possible.
I know that the Government are aware of our concerns. Perhaps, in the other place, they will find a way to demonstrate that the fears expressed by some hon. Members today bear no relation to their intentions.

8 pm

Mr. Key: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has done for some years. He must be very proud of the progress that the Bill has made, but he must also be frustrated by the fact that it is not proceeding in the exact form that he planned. Having read the debate that he secured just over a year ago, before the general election, I know that his idea of a national lottery attracted wide support—and someone else who has attracted wide support and has campaigned for years is Denis Vaughan, to whom tribute has already been paid.
Let me answer some of the specific points that have been made before dealing with the principles. New clause 10 seeks to allow Parliament to prescribe the powers and duties of the director general by affirmative resolution of both Houses; that, of course, is already in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 would leave the Secretary of State with no means of controlling, for example, certain sorts of game that might be considered undesirable on social policy grounds, but which would not give the director general similar cause for concern.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 128 to 158 would change the director general's role entirely: instead of taking sole charge of the regulation of the lottery and the licensing of the game—which together would constitute no small task —the director general would also have a controlling role in the distribution of the money available for good causes.
One of the strongest points that emerged from the consultation period that followed the White Paper's publication last year was that the functions of running the game and distributing the money should be kept separate. The powers that the amendments would give the director general would allow him to decide on, for example, changes in the shares going to each of the five beneficiary sectors and on the matters that the distributing bodies should take into account when deciding on grant applications.
Amendment No. 160 would give the director general complete discretion in regard to the number of staff in Oflot, and their pay and conditions. Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 would make it a statutory requirement that the licence to run the lottery, and the licences to run games as part of the lottery, could be held only by a charitable foundation. There is nothing to suggest that a charitable organisation would be able to introduce a more successful United Kingdom lottery than any other organisation. Amendment No. 159 would remove the Secretary of State's power to enforce the Bill's provisions as appropriate—a power that is not unusual in legislation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is inviting us to go back to the drawing board—to produce a completely different national lottery. Let me make it clear that the Government have been thinking about and working on the lottery idea for more than a year. We have sought advice widely; we have examined the experience of more than 50 lotteries around the world. We have taken a view on a number of difficult issues and have come up with an animal which is indeed rather different from the original proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) before the general election. We have done that for good reasons—precisely the same reasons that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton now suggests that we consider.
First, there is the suggestion that the lottery should be politician-free. Everything that the Bill is designed to achieve is indeed at arm's length from Ministers. Ministers will not be able to decide who is given any money; that will be entirely up to the distributing bodies. We decided to establish more than one such body, for the good reason that a single body would constitute another substantial bureacracy, duplicating the expertise that already existed in the bodies we chose—the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. We decided that, rather than establishing a single ministerial-led body to deal with charities, it would be far better to establish a system with the charities board that would have the confidence of charities, which would know that it would distribute money fairly between charities and across the nation.
A different set of considerations apply to getting the money in. We felt that the efficiency of the lottery should be paramount and that the maximum possible sum should be raised for good causes. There are various ways of approaching that aim. We decided that the most efficient private-sector operations should be invited to compete and that competitive tendering was most likely to put

downward pressure on profits, to ensure that excess profits were eliminated and to maximise the efficiency of the machinery for securing the money.
There is, of course, another overriding factor, in the form of the members of the public who are to part with good money. The main objective of the lottery is to provide fun and prizes for those who put up the stakes. We decided—admittedly, it was not a difficult judgment to make—that the chance of winning was what would encourage people to have a bit of fun, in the same spirit in which they might buy a raffle ticket for their local church or a political party. We felt that people's motives for taking part in a national lottery would be quite different from their motives in giving money to a charity or other good cause at a time of crisis. We believe that those motives will continue to flourish in this country, as in others. There should be no confusion in people's minds between charities and the efficiency of a national lottery.

Mr. Tracey: The House appreciates the way in which my hon. Friend is setting out the argument, but he must be aware that, in one regard, the lottery is not politician-free. I refer to the level of taxation. The public, and the various good causes that will receive the proceeds of the lottery, are still very unhappy, even with a 12 per cent. rate. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he had originally envisaged a higher rate, but 12 per cent. is still too high.

Mr. Key: I was coming to that, as they say. The taxation issue is crucial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and others always envisaged a tax take; it is a fallacy to pretend that, if the whole operation were run as a charitable foundation, it would somehow escape taxation. Taxation is right for a national lottery because expenditure is displaced from other parts of the economy on which tax would be levied.

Mr. Renton: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in full flood, but I must tell him that I disagree with his comment about the White Paper produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). As Minister for the Arts at the time, I played a part in its composition: perhaps over-optimistically, we felt that we had a real chance of getting away with no tax at all. [Laughterter..] I understand why hon. Members laugh at our naivety, but I am merely taking up my hon. Friend the Minister.
I fully understand the work that has gone into developing the model in the past year, and that other models around the world have been looked at. But, as my hon. Friend will know, the Irish national lottery, which I visited twice and which impressed me with the way in which it was run, pays no tax. It is an arm of the treasury, but it pays no tax. We hoped that perhaps we would get
Another point that my hon. Friend may consider—forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall bring my intervention to a close soon—is that the real difficulty is that if an arts company already does not find favour with the Arts Council for subjective reasons, perhaps because it does not like the quality of its performances, and therefore does not receive the amount of subsidy for its current expenses which it feels that it deserves, it will have to go back to the same lady bountiful for its capital requirements from the national lottery. It could lose on both counts.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend is far more experienced in the art of politics and the art of the possible than me, but he was perhaps over-optimistic in thinking that there might be no tax on the national lottery. Of course, he was there and I was not. If he says that that is what he and the Government envisaged at that time, I accept it. But it was always my understanding that it was accepted that there would be some level of taxation.
The point on which I shall finish is central to the argument about the national lottery. We decided that it was crucial that, if changes were to be made to the lottery, they should be made by Parliament. We decided that Parliament should have the last say and that the operators and distributors should ultimately be responsible to Parliament through the Director General of Oflot and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Probity and transparency are fundamental to the success of a national lottery anywhere in the world. Once there is any idea in the minds of the public that a fiddle is going on at any level, the first thing that happens is that receipts drop off sharply. That is why we have improved the transparency and accountability of the lottery since the Bill first appeared, as we have been requested to do. But we do not want a director general of some charitable foundation to decide who gets what. We believe that the construction of the lottery with 20 per cent. bands is sensible.
We shall come to the millennium fund later. We believe that it should receive 20 per cent. After the millennium, the amount will reduce and that money will go to the other four areas. So Parliament will have the final say. It will be able to change the 20 per cent. distribution figures. Parliament will be responsible for ensuring that there are fair shares for all the beneficiaries and that the Government keep their word on additionality.
We could not have been more clear about additionality. It would not have been possible to make it clearer that the money for the national lottery was outside the planning total and that we have no intention of substituting it for other money. However, ultimately substitution will be in the hands of the distributors. For example, if a distributor in sport slips into the habit of giving grants for parts of sport which would normally be funded by a local authority or the Sports Council, it will have only itself to blame if in future years a Chancellor of another political hue said, "They are funding that themselves now."
The intention is clear. We have done all that we can. I hope that I have answered my hon. and learned Friend in the serious way in which his arguments should be addressed. He invites us to start again and produce a different model of national lottery. His new clause and amendments would certainly have that effect. They would take us back to the drawing board. I could not recommend that to the House for a good reason. Every day that we delay the implementation of the national lottery, good causes will suffer.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has the right to reply.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful and well-meaning speech. I appreciate that the argument is not one-sided. Things can be said on both sides—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) will allow me to think without babbling away behind me, I shall be grateful and my remarks will be shorter.
I fail to see how my hon. Friend the Minister can sustain the argument that the national lottery will be politician-free in the light of clause 11, which says:
The Director General shall in exercising his functions under sections 5 to 10 comply with any directions that he may be given by the Secretary of State.
8.15 pm
Clause 5(6) clearly states:
A licence under this section shall include a condition requiring the licensee to pay to the Secretary of State at such times as may be determined by or under the licence such sums out of the proceeds of lotteries forming part of the National Lottery as may be so determined.
He who pays the piper calls the tune and he who takes the money also calls the tune. That is the politician.
It would be sensible if I did not press the new clause at this stage because it is clear that the Government of a year ago had a different view from that of the Government of today about how the national lottery should proceed. If such a change can take place, perhaps with a little more time the change can be reversed. That time will be provided by due consideration in the other place. That consideration will not be helped if I press the new clause tonight. So with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

OVERRIDING DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR GENERAL

Mr. Alan Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'() The Secretary of State shall provide for monitoring to be undertaken in order to determine the effect, if any, of the National Lottery on the level of charitable income.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—
'; and such report shall include an estimate of the effect, if any, of the National Lottery on the level of charitable income during that financial year.'.

Mr. Howarth: The purpose of the amendment is to place an overriding duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the effects of the national lottery on charitable donation income are identified and monitored. That was, indeed, a recommendation of the National Heritage Select Committee. Several members of the Committee have participated in our debates this afternoon.
Paragraph 11 of the Select Committee's report of 14 January 1993 states:
A fourth matter of concern to the Committee relates to the position of charities and the likely impact of the Lottery on their resources. The Bill contains proposals intended to make small charitable lotteries more attractive. But the Committee remains concerned that competition from the National Lottery will have an adverse effect on the level of funds donated to charities. Nor is it convinced that the distribution of funds through the new National Lottery Charities Board will leave no individual charity in a worse


position. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Department of National Heritage should monitor the possible impact of the National Lottery on charities.
It is against that background, and because I feel that it is extremely important that monitoring should take place, that I have tabled amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
I am glad that amendment No. 8 was selected. I believe for two reasons that it is preferable that the duty to monitor be placed on the Secretary of State. First, it will ensure that the Secretary of State has control of the methodology of monitoring. Secondly, it should mean that the funding necessary to conduct the exercise will come from the Department rather than from the proceeds of the lottery. Placing that general duty on the Secretary of State will make it possible for the appropriate research to be carried out into any area where the possible effect of the national lottery on charitable income may be a matter of concern.
Three areas of concern have already been identified. Rigorous impartial research to establish the position in each of those areas as the national lottery becomes established and proceeds would make it possible to determine whether any action to restore the financial position of charities were required. I believe that the Government ought to accept this responsibility since they are creating the national lottery and unleashing an immense force, the effects of which cannot be predicted with precision but which will undoubtedly be important.
The first area of concern that I wish to see monitored is that of any possible reduction in funding from local and central Government. I fully accept the genuineness of my hon. Friend's pledges that it is the Government's intention that the resources generated by the national lottery should be additional to any funding that the Government would in the ordinary way provide for the good causes that will also be beneficiaries of the lottery. It is critical that the generation of funds from the national lottery does not, over time, lead to a reduction in the existing funding of charities from either local or central Government.
I greatly welcome what I regard as a significant statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister in the previous debate, when he made it clear that it was his view that Parliament should monitor the issue of additionality. If we are to monitor, we will need the data that a monitoring exercise sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would provide.
It is disappointing to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government have not found a way to write their pledge on additionality in watertight terms into the Bill. To be fair, I accept that that is an extremely difficult thing to do—I cannot see how it can be done—but the fact that it is impossible to do so in the way that we would desire, makes it all the more important that the monitoring should take place.
The second concern that should be monitored is the impact that the national lottery may have on the income from small charitable lotteries. There are reasons to be apprehensive that the introduction of the national lottery may lead to a decline in charitable income from small lotteries, and it is a matter of regret that the Government rejected amendments in Committee to prevent the use by the national lottery of games giving an instant win. I would have preferred that the Government had been willing to allow charities to have a clear run in instant lotteries. That would still leave the national lottery immense scope to raise funds for its purposes.
The third area of concern that ought to be monitored is the impact that the national lottery will undoubtedly have on charitable donations. Research carried out by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations suggests that the level of charitable giving will decline with the advent of the national lottery. My hon. Friend the Minister again made it clear that, in the context of taxation, the Government accept that the national lottery will displace expenditure elsewhere. That is the basis on which the Minister sought to justify the level of taxation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. If expenditure on the national lottery displaces expenditure in other areas, that will obviously include charitable giving and it is important that we should follow exactly what happens.
The NCVO has estimated, based on market research conducted by NOP that the national lottery could lead to a loss in charitable donation income of around £230 million per year or 7 per cent. of the income currently received by charities from the public. That figure of £230 million has been decried as an exaggeration. It is, of course, based on certain assumptions and scenarios. The NOP survey concluded that the lottery is perceived by the public as a scheme to benefit "good causes". That picture of the lottery, as revealed by that survey, is one which accurately reflects the Government's own purpose.
The NCVO concluded from that survey that £230 million is likely to be lost in donation income. That figure, I fear, is within the realms of possibility. I hope that those of us who have this apprehension are proved wrong, but it is on the cards that we could see a diversion of the donations given to charity of that order.
I welcome the commitment given on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and confirmed by the Minister in Committee, that it is the Government's intention that the lottery will not be promoted in ways likely to lead to a reduction in donation income. I should like that commitment to be expressed in the Bill. Even if forswearing that kind of promotion may mean that the loss to the sector proves to be less than the 7 per cent. that I mentioned, research still suggests that it could well be in the region of 4 per cent. of donation income.
The report of the Rothschild royal commission on gambling quoted its own market research, conducted in 1978. That research suggested that the lottery would result in a loss in income to charities of about 4 per cent. More recently, the report of DKM Economic Consultants, commissioned in 1991 by the Irish An Post National Lottery company, also revealed that 4 per cent. of those who bought Irish state lottery tickets said that, in the absence of the state lottery, they would have given the money to one charity or another.
I concede that market research has its limitations. It does, after all, ask people to consider their likely future actions and none of us can be certain of them, not even Ministers; to their own surprise, they may be moved to accept amendments—if not today, perhaps in another place. However, as the Rothschild royal commission accepted, market research is the best means that we have to reach a judgment about the likely activity of the public in such matters.
A drop of 4 per cent. in donation income may not sound terrible, but given the scale of charitable giving in this country, it would mean a considerable loss in cash terms. The same NOP survey revealed that the public


donated £3·1 billion to charity in 1992. A drop of 4 per cent. in that income would mean a loss of £120 milion per annum. A loss in income on such a scale would mean a reduction in services to some of the most vulnerable groups in our society that the charities serve.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the overriding duty placed by the Bill on the director general and the Secretary of State to maximise the proceeds available to beneficiaries from the lottery. The expressed aim of the Bill is to ensure that the lottery generates maximum additional resources for the specified "good causes"—arts, sport, heritage and charities. The available evidence, however, suggests that the lottery would result in a reduction in donation income and public support to charities.
It is possible that lottery proceeds may fail even to compensate for the income lost to charities as a result of the lottery. Surely it is intended that proceeds from the lottery will not only compensate for any loss, but provide additional new money. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had acknowledged that probable outcome by including charities in the list of beneficiaries, which was not part of the original intention, on the assumption that proceeds from the lottery would, in part, compensate for the resulting drop in income. That decision has been greatly welcomed.
The corollary of the Government's concern that they will wish to satisfy themselves about the practical effect of their policy. As things are, however, nothing in the Bill provides for the effect of the lottery on charities to be monitored. It is vital that its impact on voluntary sector donation income is monitored and assessed.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister also gave a welcome assurance that the impact of the lottery on voluntary sector income would be taken into account when beneficiary shares come to be reviewed. That being so, surely it is sensible to incorporate amendment No. 8, or something along the same lines, to ensure that the Government have the data and the information on which to base their consideration of the effect of the lottery on donations to charities.

Mr. Orme: The issue of additionality is important, because there are signs that the Government are considering funding the millennium fund for the year 2000, out of lottery proceeds. Who is to say that the Government would have donated such money to that fund if those lottery proceeds were not available? This issue is important because hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about it. How does one check it? How can one tell what the Government would have put into sport or the arts without it? It is only human nature, is it not? My experience of the Treasury, as a Minister and as a Member, is that it cannot be trusted when it comes to finance on this sort of scale.
I accept that the Government have given an undertaking that lottery proceeds should be additional to the funds provided by normal Government expenditure programmes, but there is no evidence of how it will be programmed or monitored. Experience in other countries suggests that unless very firm measures are put in place this undertaking will be eroded after a relatively short time. Elsewhere in the world lottery proceeds are dedicated to particular causes, as they will be in the United Kingdom,

either to the arts or to sport. The mention of sport prompts me to refer to the rather small attendance in the Chamber this evening which may have something to do with the fact that England is playing Holland at the moment.

Mr. Corbett: What is the score?

Mr. Orme: I have no idea, but England is playing Holland at Wembley at the present time, and some of our thoughts are with the English team.
Let me give an example of the erosion of funding. In 1976, the Massachusetts state lottery was set up to raise money for the arts. State funding from taxation for the arts gradually decreased until by 1992 all public funding in that state had stopped. Similarly in New Zealand a lottery for the arts was set up in 1987. For the next three years Government funding of the arts remained at the same level, although without any increase for inflation. Four years after the lottery was established, the Government grant for the arts in New Zealand was cut by half.
We must take these things into account. For instance, a study has shown that, in the state of New York, the decline in support for education programmes set in five years after the establishment of the lottery. In New Jersey it was six years. However, in Michigan and Illinois, the states in the study which has most recently established their lotteries, the decline in expenditure by the state on education was almost immediate.
We are, of course, opposed to any of this money going into education or social services or any other particular area—a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). But I warn the House that there will be pressure from some sections of the public that this be taken into account, and unless the guidelines are very firmly established and hon. Members clearly stipulate what they want to happen, the effect could be disastrous.
The evidence from Ireland regarding additionality is even more striking. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to DKM carrying out research in 1989 on behalf of the Irish An Post lottery company. It estimated that, between 1987 and 1989, 49 per cent. of lottery funding substituted for Government expenditure and only 51 per cent. of the total received by the beneficiaries from lottery proceeds represented new money.
In the light of this evidence, it is of the utmost importance that the monitoring proposed in the amendment should also take into account the effect of the lottery on public support of causes benefiting from the lottery. This is particularly important for the charitable and voluntary sectors. Voluntary organisations currently receive almost £600 million per annum in support from local authorities. A National Council for Voluntary Organisations survey in 1991 revealed that in the previous financial year this funding had been cut by almost £29 million.
Local authority support for voluntary organisations is discretionary. It is therefore one of the areas of local authority funding most under threat at times when public expenditure is tight. The availability of new sources of funding locally, such as the lottery, may tempt local authorities into using it as a justification for further reducing their support for voluntary organisations.
The Government have made it clear that they do not intend lottery proceeds to be a substitute for local and


central Government support for charities, the arts, sports and heritage projects. They have made that declaration. But we want a guarantee that this will not take place, and many of us are concerned that, in the case of a new opera house or even the development of Covent Garden, or some other spectacular development, much of the money could be siphoned off into that project when it should be funded by the state because of its national status.
Monitoring mechanisms are therefore important. I do not expect the Government to accept these amendments of clauses 8 and 9. Nevertheless, I hope that they will take into account the importance of additionality and monitoring and of the fact that many people will judge the success or otherwise of the national lottery by its development and by its independence from the Government, not least from the Treasury.

Lady Olga Maitland: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The amendment came about as a result of fears voiced to us by a considerable number of charitable and voluntary organisations which can see themselves being totally swamped by an enormously successful national lottery. I fear that the Government are almost backing away from envisaging just the kind of figures that the lottery could bring in. Experts who have studied lotteries in other countries and based their analysis on the success of those lotteries estimate that, within four years of being established, a national lottery in this country could bring in an income of about £2·8 billion in one year or, to put it differently, £55 million a week.
Just how can small voluntary or charitable organisations stand up to such a stupendous success unless provision is made to protect their interests? It is therefore vital that the Government not only monitor the progress of the income of voluntary organisations but put that commitment to monitoring in the Bill so that there will be no doubt about their sincerity. I know that they have taken the point and that it has been heard in Committee. Nevertheless, there is a slight flaw—the belief that somehow or other all will be well on the day.
The voluntary organisations have a real concern that they could be totally overwhelmed and that their donation income could sink unless we pay due attention to the problem. We must make sure that the money they lose is more than made up by additionality which could accrue from the national lottery. I support the amendment, and I trust that those considerations will be taken into account.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I declare an interest, although not a financial one, in two charities: the Foundation for Management Education and the Cancer Research Campaign, both of which have reason to expect—particularly the latter—that their incomes will be adversely affected by the Bill.
Historians may look back on this as the point when the country first failed to match its aspirations, with Exchequer money, by backing projects that it valued with taxpayers' money. The passage of this Bill is likely to mark the point when a great nation turned away from funding important projects in the arts and in sport in this way. Instead, like the Roman empire in decline, we have begun to rely on lotteries and the impulse of greed to meet our aspirations. Charities will probably begin to feel the adverse effects of the change more immediately than any other sector.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was right to try to chart the consequences of what we are doing.

Mr. Renton: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has just made the most astonishing statement. Does he not know that the Sydney opera house was built from the proceeds of a lottery? No one could possibly call Australia a declining or tired nation. How was the British museum built, if not from funds raised in a lottery? It was built to house the Sloane collection in the second half of the 18th century. We are only going back to the same means of raising money for good causes that was followed successfully by our Georgian and Victorian ancestors.

Mr. Maclennan: Our Georgian and Victorian ancestors —particularly the Victorians, who are often prayed in aid by the Government—had a greater sense of civic pride and responsibility. The great municipal collections and institutions were the result of private giving or of municipal endowment. Only in the 20th century have we sought, using taxpayers' money, to establish institutions on the scale that we have come to enjoy. It is a sad comment on the decline of this country that the Government have begun clutching at straws, for that is what this Bill amounts to. Some people have been remarkably naive to believe that the Bill will have any lasting beneficial effects on the good causes that it purports to help.
I say "naive", because it is not possible to write into the Bill any sort of protection for additionality. Ministers have given their word in this respect in earlier debates, but already the Department of National Heritage has been blighted. I cannot prove this, but I would be astonished if the Minister said that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not tell him during the last public expenditure round, in which the Department took a savage cut by comparison with other Departments, that he could look forward to the bounty of a national lottery to make up the shortfall in the Department's vote. That was but a foretaste of what is to come. Future public expenditure rounds will show up the consequences of this unfortunate measure.
8.45 pm
The charities did not ask for this. The Government have claimed that charities will be protected, in the sense that they will benefit. To the extent that that intention is translated into fact, it will be necessary to judge the impact on charitable giving. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has done us a valuable service, although it will be very difficult to chart the impact charity by charity, as people change from putting something in the tin proffered at the underground station on behalf of guide dogs for the blind and instead buy lottery tickets from a kiosk. That this change will happen, however, is certain. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can well understand the concerns voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and other hon. Members about the effect of the national lottery on voluntary organisations' incomes. Much of the debate inside and outside Parliament since the national lottery became a real prospect has centred on this.
The evidence from abroad is inconclusive, but I believe that most people will go on giving to their preferred charities and taking part in their small lotteries, which the Bill includes major measures to encourage.
Nevertheless, I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind the amendments. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland) have actively sought to protect the interests and incomes of charities in the new situation that the Bill will create. I applaud their objectives, although I do not think that they will be effectively advanced by adopting these amendments at this time.
In any survey it would be very difficult to separate beyond dispute the impact of the lottery from the effect of other factors, such as changes in the economic climate or in the voluntary sector. Although I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had to say, his scepticism about how far research can dissect what has occurred is well placed.
I do not believe that a requirement to make a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the national lottery on every part of the voluntary sector every year, as the amendments would require, would be illuminating or a good use of resources. It would be quite expensive; there are 500,000 voluntary organisations. The charities board, however, will have to keep a sharp eye on all charities as it decides how best to distribute its share of the funds raised by the national lottery. It will soon learn of it if charities are experiencing a drop in their incomes, for charities will not be slow to let the board—and Ministers —know if they believe that they have lost out.
The Charities Aid Foundation also provides statistics which are illuminating—as far as they can go. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be able to set in train research when he judges that more information on a certain sector is needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that he expects the issue to be considered by the House every Parliament so that the House can express its view on these matters.
I accept my hon. Friend's essential point that the Government and the House must continue to take an informed interest in how the charities succeed in living and hopefully prospering, with the national lottery. There are more flexible and useful ways to get the necessary information and to inquire into prima facie problems than the amendment would provide.
Additionality lies slightly outside the scope of the amendment, but it is important and was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). The Government have given undertakings that lottery money will not be used as a substitute for public spending. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) opined some scepticism. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that it was difficult to judge whether, ultimately, there has been substitution because public expenditure moves up and down and there are always complaints.
However, it would be difficult to see whether the movement had been affected in any way by the lottery. Suffice it to say that recipients of money from the lottery who felt that they had lost an equivalent or greater sum

than that which they could have expected from the Treasury will not be slow to say so. There will be not a dearth of information but a surfeit and hon. Members, the Select Committee and others will have to make a fair and reasonable judgment upon it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon for drawing our attention to this issue and for making it clear that it requires continuing attention. It will certainly have the Government's sustained interest and I am glad that the amendment has enabled me to put that on the record. The Home Secretary and I will seek to produce methods that will show useful known trends in charitable giving and the effect of different lotteries. However, I suspect that we shall rely much more on the resources of outside resource bodies, which will keep an eagle eye on what is happening.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for taking part in the debate. I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said in his lugubrious analysis, but he certainly underlined the importance of the lottery's impact on charitable giving and on other aspects of our national life.
I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition of the importance of the issue. I agree that it would be a technically difficult, extensive and demanding exercise to carry out the sort of systematic monitoring that I continue to think it is incumbent upon the Government and Parliament to find ways to carry out. I am grateful that he acknowledged that it is important to continue the search for ways to enable the Government and Parliament to follow closely and assess critically and intelligently the national lottery's impact.
The Minister used a phrase that gave me some encouragement because he suggested that it was not appropriate to legislate now. Perhaps the issue will be further examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

LICENSING OF A BODY TO RUN THE NATIONAL LOTTERY

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
'() A licence under this section shall include a condition forbidding the licensee from making arrangements which seek to prohibit the sale of tickets in local or society lotteries in outlets authorised to offer for sale tickets for the national lottery and those lotteries forming part of it.'.
The amendment is designed to avoid what happened in Ireland, where, over a period, those who operate the national lottery have driven from outlets authorised to handle national lottery tickets those who sell society and local lottery tickets. The Government cannot want that to happen, so there should be no difficulty in accepting the amendment or its principle.
The Under-Secretary of State may say that this is a matter for the Director-General of the National Lottery, but it is too risky to leave to him or to the good sense of those who will eventually be licensed under clause 5 to operate the lottery. The retail outlets that will be authorised to sell lottery tickets are matters for the


commercial judgment of the lottery operators.
There must be ground rules, and the first, must be that exclusive arrangements which compel shopkeepers to get rid of local lottery and society tickets if they want to sell national lottery tickets are unfair and anti-competitive, and should not be tolerated. In a phrase that will doubtless appeal to the Under-Secretary and his hon. Friends, the decision should be left to the person running the retail outlet and his customers. It is for them to decide and decisions must not be imposed upon them by those who operate the lottery.
There is no reason at all why the national lottery operators should try to do that, because we are virtually agreed that, generally, the two sets of tickets are competing for different money, probably from different people. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State nods. However, there is a suspicion that in circumstances where the national lottery is not doing as well as expected, the operator may feel that the best way to drive up custom is to bear down on shopkeepers and threaten that unless they stop selling all other forms of lottery tickets they will not be allowed to sell tickets for the national lottery.
Under competition policy, a shopkeeper, probably a customer and certainly a large retail chain would be able to take action. As the Under-Secretary knows, that is the case in Ireland and I suspect that it is a fairly long route. When local lottery and society tickets have disappeared from the shop counter, the shopkeeper may decide to acquiesce and agree to what is going on.
If the Minister feels unable to accept the amendment, perhaps he will acknowledge its principle and think about ways to try to ensure that this does not happen, so that retailers and customers can decide on the tickets they want to buy—none or both, one or the other.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I endorse the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). It is important that we do what we can to ensure that the national lottery does not become a monopoly. We can guard against this by legislating to ensure equal opportunities for small lotteries in the marketing and distribution of tickets in the United Kingdom. As he said, in Ireland the national lottery reinforced its monopoly position by practices that severely restricted the sales of tickets for charity lotteries. We would do well to learn from the experience of Ireland, where the system is similar in many ways to the one that will exist here.
Within two years of the introduction of the national lottery in Ireland, sales of charity lottery tickets were reduced by 60 per cent. The reason was mainly a concentrated selling campaign by the national lottery and its insistence that sellers of national lottery tickets did not sell the tickets of any other lottery.

Mr. Key: I know all about that.

Mr. Howarth: I am glad to see my hon. Friend acknowledging the importance of that experience. I would expect him to be aware of it. It is important to state on the record now what has happened and the danger that we need to guard against.
The tactics went further, in that the best sales outlets of charity lotteries were specifically targeted to sell national lottery tickets. When a market for those tickets had been built up, the operators refused to supply further national lottery tickets unless the outlets stopped selling tickets for

any other lottery. That resulted in the national lottery coming to control 98 per cent. of the market. An outcome along those lines would be a disaster to charities here.
I accept, as the hon. Member for Erdington said, that national and European legislation forbids such restrictive trade practices, but by the time that action can be taken under such legislation the damage will already have been done and it will be too late to save most small lotteries. The practices of the national lottery in Ireland were the subject of protests to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade and a restrictive practices order was made in May 1990, but I am advised that those practices continue and that the problem has not altogether been resolved.
9 pm
Furthermore, another practice has been developed. The Irish national lottery sets much higher targets for retailers handling other lotteries and, if they miss their targets, they lose the agency, or the most lucrative part of it. That threat has worked and charities in Ireland have found it impossible to persuade shops and other outlets to take on their business. It is important that there should be specific provision in the Bill to prevent such an experience in Britain. Unless it is written into the Bill, small lotteries will be at a severe disadvantage and in danger of being forced out of business.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the amendment. It is necessary to protect small lotteries as much as possible. I have here a letter from Bradford Northern rugby league football club. I am sure that the Minister will know that it has the best amphitheatre site in the north of England and probably in the country, but it has financial difficulties in maintaining the ground and the site. I will not go into the detail of the letter, because this is not the debate in which to do so, but it makes the point that small lotteries such as the one that it runs could be in difficulties as a result of the national lottery unless statutory protections are given, to enable it to run its lottery, as it does now, to provide income for the worthy cause of helping to maintain rugby league football at Bradford Northern.
The club says that, already, much of the Bill is designed to make life as difficult as possible for the small local lottery. It feels that some of the Bill's provisions are unnecessary. Therefore, a safeguard on the sale of tickets would be a useful protection for small lotteries. I am sure that the Minister does not want to see worthwhile ventures such as that pushed out of existence. If that occurs and the lotteries run by Bradford Northern are prejudiced, it will be a serious financial blow to them. Like most Bradfordians, and many others besides, I want rugby league football to be maintained in Bradford for many years to come.

Mr. Davidson: One issue has been concerning small lotteries, and I hope the Minister will address it. As he will be aware, in Committee we debated what should happen in the event of there being more than 52 Saturdays in a year. Has the Minister made an adjustment to the rules covering that? Another amendment deals with the matter, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to address it now.

Mr. Key: That last point is important. However, it is the subject of a different amendment, and it would be helpful if we dealt with it in its turn.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right. We do not wish Bradford Northern or any other club to be prejudiced. That point was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and we will bear it in mind. It is also relevant to the clause, because it is a question of fair trading. I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that I concur with his instincts, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that we have learnt from the Irish experience.
The concerns behind the amendment, which are well taken, were addressed in Committee. It seeks to prevent those who deal in national lottery tickets from entering into exclusive deals with retailers that would preclude the selling of other lottery tickets. As I said in Committee, a contract that sought to hold a retailer to an exclusive deal would have the potential to be anti-competitive and would be open to scrutiny and challenge by United Kingdom competition authorities—principally the Office of Fair Trading—and by the European Commission. It would also come under scrutiny by the lottery's director general.
There would of course be nothing to stop an operator establishing its own shops or franchises dealing exclusively in national lottery products—that is a separate issue—but an operator would clearly be open to challenge if it entered into exclusive, anti-competitive deals with general retail outlets, as would pools companies or United Kingdom charity lotteries.
Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, it is not necessary. I realise that it is based on fears expressed by charities as a result of practices in the Republic of Ireland, which were graphically described this evening, where the Irish national lottery marketed itself very aggressively against existing lotteries. It is made clear elsewhere in the Bill that such practices will be dissuaded. There is no intention to market the national lottery against existing lotteries.
The United Kingdom is not the Republic of Ireland. The economy and the market in which the national lottery and other lotteries operate in the two countries are significantly different in a number of ways. We have also had the benefit of observing what happened in the Republic of Ireland, and of course we recognise that such practices are undesirable.
Those who run small lotteries in this country will be quick to spot tell-tale signs of uncompetitive behaviour and it will need only a telephone call to Oflot's director general to alert him to the problem. I do not accept that that will be a long and bureaucratic procedure.

Mr. Cryer: That is the very point that concerns me. It might be helpful to have some indication in the Bill so that people do not become bogged down. If an exclusive trading agreement is reached which puts out a local lottery, and if several weeks elapse before any effective alteration can be made, the local lottery will be severely handicapped during that period. I suspect that the Minister wants to avoid that as much as I do.

Mr. Key: Yes, we both want to avoid that happening. I made the point earlier, in a different context, that we have more than a year to get this right. Precisely that sort of detail must be addressed by the lottery's director general.
It would be against the operator's long-term interest, if it wants its contract to be renewed—because contracts are likely to run for only two or three years under clause 6—to enter into anti-competitive deals that would prejudice its future. I hope that I have reassured the House that the situation does not call for the amendment. When the director general is appointed, he or she will want to bear that aspect in mind, because it will be in no one's interests to damage club lotteries, large or small, or any other lotteries.

Mr. Corbett: The Under-Secretary of State has again demonstrated that he is not only or mainly the gas and gaiters that he may have inherited from his father. He has listened and demonstrated that he understands the anxieties voiced tonight and those of the organisations that properly expressed their concerns to us.
I am also grateful to the Minister for putting it on record that the lesson from the Irish experience has been learnt. I feel as satisfied as anybody can be that those who are thinking about applying for a licence under clause 5 will know that this has been said and that the director is likely to jump on them hard if they try it on. With the leave of the House, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 8, after 'lotteries', insert
'other than lotteries using scratch-off instant tickets'.
If the Minister has paid great attention to the experience in Ireland, I hope that he will give a sympathetic hearing to amendment No. 3. Its intention is to deal with a problem that has been identified in Ireland in the working of the national lottery there.
The Irish National Lottery Company has used aggressive practices, as the Minister said when he replied to the previous debate, and has, apparently, put pressure on retailers not to sell competing charity scratch card tickets. Many retailers there no longer accept these tickets for sale, with the result that charities find it difficult to obtain good sales outlets.
It is fairly widely accepted that the main motivation of lottery operators in using instant win scratch card games is to drive charitable lotteries, particularly small ones, right out of the market. Evidence of that has been drawn to the attention of hon. Members by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, in New Zealand and a number of other countries. We are not in entirely uncharted territory.
Scratch card tickets can account for as much as a quarter of the revenue of state lotteries abroad, so it is not an insignificant amount, particularly if it is transferred directly from charitable giving. That is why I move the amendment, which is intended to restrict the use of scratch card tickets in the national lottery. I do not doubt that the charitable sector will inevitably lose income from small lotteries as a result of the national lottery, but if we do not do something about instant win scratch cards in particular, its position will be substantially worse.
I need not delay the House unduly on an amendment whose purpose is widely understood.

Mr. Orme: This matter was raised by the Minister in Committee. He said:
The operators will have to form a view as part of their overall marketing strategy. It may be reasonable not to have


instant gains, but we want to leave that up to them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 February 1993; c. 74.]
I was astounded when I heard that the national lottery would allow scratch games to be played. I had assumed that the national lottery would be a weekly affair and that people would buy a ticket for it. Scratch cards are used by football clubs, charities and political parties and bring in a great deal of revenue. Scratch cards will, I believe, demean the national lottery.
The Government, I acknowledge, have gone a long way towards meeting the issues raised in many of the amendments and that they have met some of the anxieties that have been expressed. However, many of us still oppose in principle the establishment of a national lottery. However, it is our job to try to improve the Bill and to safeguard the charities which it will put in jeopardy.
The House will obviously approve the Bill, which will go to another place and receive Royal Assent. It will establish a national lottery, but we do not need scratch cards within that lottery, and I ask the Minister to acknowledge that.

Mr. Graham: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Many organisations in my area, which work on behalf of people with mental handicaps or for football clubs or the scout organisation, rely on charitable ventures and use scratch cards, domino cards and spot-the-ball games. The Minister should not allow the national lottery to stray into scratch card territory. Scratch cards are like an instant lottery, and political parties use them all the time. My idea of a national lottery is something like that which operates in Spain, for example. If we allow the national lottery to use scratch cards, we shall be adversely affecting charities, sports clubs and other organisations which the Minister would like to help.
Most of the instant scratch cards are sold by guys in pubs and clubs—Labour has had some success in that way and— usually cost 10p or 25p. I plead with the Minister not to allow the wee clubs to be harmed, although I fear that the national lottery will clearly affect those which raise their own funds. I hope that he will take steps to ensure that they can still earn their dough through the scratch card.

Mr. Key: There are many lotteries in life, one of which is up and running and doing well at the moment—I gather that England was 2:1 up at half time and that Wales drew 1:1 in Prague. However, the lottery with which we are dealing is not yet up and running, but I want it to be up and running and to be a huge success.
If there is any misapprehension about the nature of the national lottery, let me dispel it. It will consist of more than one game. Different types of game will be licensed under clause 6. The issue of scratch cards, which was raised at length in Committee and again this evening, is important. National lotteries worldwide are a mixture of longer-term draw games and instant games. At the birth of this new enterprise—raising money for good causes—we should not shackle it with primary legislation ruling out an entire important category of lottery.
Instant games are an important source of income in the majority of national and state lotteries. Instant lotteries operate in all the states of America in which lotteries are

run and contribute about 26 per cent. of overall turnover. In other countries, the contribution made by this type of game can be as high as 40 per cent.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Key: I shall give way in a moment, but I must make a little progress.
The impact of outlawing instant games as part of the national lottery could therefore lead to the loss of many millions of pounds for good causes, including charities, and may call into question the very viability of a national lottery.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Key: I promise that I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point about local charities. If I do not, I shall of course allow him to intervene.
The Bill does not designate particular games for the national lottery. Such legislation could soon become outdated and would place burdensome restrictions on the director general and the operators. Each individual game will require a clause 6 licence from the director general, who will be able to examine in detail the proposed workings of a game. Games should not be accepted or rejected at this stage by rules set in stone a full year before the lottery even begins running.
I am aware that the promoters of some society and charity lotteries are worried that the national lottery will provide them with direct competition backed by a higher market profile. However, as we have argued for some hours, the national lottery will be an entirely different proposition from charity lotteries.
No one will be in any doubt about the distinction. The lottery will not be marketed in the same way as charity lotteries. I expect that, within reasonable limits, marketing decisions will be taken independently of Government. Evidence submitted by respondents to the White Paper, and other contributions that have been made over the past few months, have suggested that the fun, winning images of national or state lotteries are by far the stronger in promotional terms. The motivation is what matters, and the motivation for buying charity or club lottery tickets is very different. Charity and sports club lotteries are played by people who, for the most part, identify with the cause that they are supporting. I am sure that we shall continue to purchase lottery tickets and raffle tickets for local good causes and other causes dear to our hearts.
Part III makes further provision for charity and society lotteries, raising the existing limits on turnover and on prizes and improving their ability to continue to raise funds. Motivation is what the hon. Gentleman was concerned about, and I believe that people will continue to support their local football clubs, local charities and other clubs, in addition to any fun that they may derive from buying national lottery tickets.
I know that some hon. Members are concerned that instant lotteries may be addictive. It is impossible to state categorically that no one will find a certain form of game addictive, but our intention is clear: the director general will not license games structured or marketed in such a way as to heighten the aspects of a lottery which most appeal to the gambler. If at any stage such tactics appear to be a problem, the Secretary of State can use the powers in clause 11 to direct that certain types of game should be ruled out altogether. However, to rule out every sort of


instant game at this early stage could in effect ensure that the national lottery was a failure, so I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in opposing the amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: This has been a short debate, but I hope that it will not be considered unimportant. I realise that the Minister, who has shown good temper and patience throughout the proceedings, would no doubt like to canter quickly through the latter part of the process.

Mr. Key: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maclennan: I am delighted that the Minister is still so enthusiastic about his job.
I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division, and I hope that the debate will be noticed in another place so that the matter can be raised again.
I do not think that the Minister's answer to the debate, and especially to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), was wholly adequate. He sought to make comparisons with the United States, and did not deal with the example of Ireland at all. The position in the United States is simply not comparable. The whole ethos of charitable giving in the United States is made entirely different by the tax structure in that country, which positively induces people to give money to charities and other good causes. In this country people are not drawn to give in the same way, because there is no obvious benefit in doing so. In the United States there is far less reliance on the scratch card technique of fund raising.

Mr. Graham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard the Minister say that scratch cards may be used and that the quick money makes roughly 26 per cent., so there will only be that opportunity to make all that money. In that case, why do the Government not take control of all types of gambling in which instant money can be made? It goes against the grain if we are to punish organisations that use instant scratch cards, and the Government will not allow them to carry on, so that the charity organisations will lose again unless they get money from other sources.

Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. My point about the United States is that lotteries relying on scratch cards there do not have the adverse effect on charities that they will have in this country where charities rely on scratch cards to a far greater extent. There are different tax incentives for private giving in the United States.
I find it notable that the Minister failed to address the Irish example. In Ireland, there has been a charted decline in charitable giving which the Irish attribute in no small measure to the use of instant-win scratch cards. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been well made by others in this debate. However, I wish to signal clearly to the Minister that the matter will be returned to in another place.
I acknowledge that none of us can predict with certainty what the outcome of the Bill will be. He and I are both in the dark to some extent. However, when so many charitable organisations whose very existence is at stake take a certain view, we as a legislature are obliged to give them heed.

Mr. Robert Banks: I support what my hon. Friend the Minister has said tonight.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to scratch cards in the United States. Is he aware that scratch cards printed in this country cannot be imported into the United States? Does he agree that it would be highly undesirable for tickets printed in the United States to be imported into this country for the purposes of the national lottery?

Mr. Maclennan: I did not know that. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. On first blush, I think that the hon. Gentleman must be right. I hope that that point is also borne in mind by the Minister.
Scratch cards are a major issue. The Minister illustrated their significance when he said that, if the lottery was not able to use that technique, it could make or break the lottery. By the same token, if it makes or breaks some of our major charities, it will have a damaging effect which can be no part of the Government's purpose. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

LICENCES UNDER SECTIONS 5 AND 6:

FURTHER PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 3, line 41, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.

No. 28, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Clause 12

REGULATIONS AS TO THE PROMOTION OF LOTTERIES

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 36, at end insert—
'() the use which may be made in advertising and promotion of reference to charitable causes which may be likely to receive moneys from lottery proceeds;'.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State include specifically the possibility of the imposition of requirements or restrictions on the use of images or other materials derived from the charity sector in the advertising or promotion of the national lottery. The Secretary of State gave an assurance on Second Reading that the national lottery would be marketed as a lottery and not as a charitable enterprise. That assurance can only be welcomed. However, I am glad that the Secretary of State is in his place because I want to point out to him that his statements relating to the issue appear to be contradictory.
The Secretary of State said that the lottery—[Interruption.] The rugby crowd are in. The Secretary of State said that the lottery would attract those interested in having a flutter who would also contribute to a good cause. He thus appeared to acknowledge that the good cause element would encourage more people to participate in the lottery. That was confirmed—I am sure that the Secretary of State is all ears as I proceed with the argument —by the findings of the NOP survey commissioned by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Some 24 per cent. of those questioned said that their main reason for purchasing national lottery tickets would be to make a


donation to a good cause. That research clearly shows that the term "good causes" is identified in the public mind with charities.
9.30 pm
There is a potential danger, therefore, that, unless there exist specific controls on the ways in which the lottery may be promoted, it will be promoted using captions and images that are likely to mislead the public. The NOP research shows —and other research studies confirm these findings—that projects that meet people's urgent needs, such as those assisting the elderly and the disabled, are more popular causes than sports, arts or heritage. The lottery operators may therefore be tempted to use images of charitable organisations in their advertising material.
Lottery operators could, for example, use to a disproportionate degree in their promotional material images of famine relief work undertaken by organisations such as Oxfam or the work of organisations such as Help the Aged, recognising that images of starving children or isolated elderly people will be more likely to encourage people to buy tickets than images of sports stadiums or restored monuments.
Although the Minister gave an undertaking in Committee that the amount of stake money available for good causes would be included on the ticket, that will not rule out lottery advertising of a nature that encourages the public to slide into the assumption that a greater proportion of lottery proceeds than is actually the case will be passed on to good causes, and to charities in particular. If that happens, it will have a serious effect on charitable donation incomes, as people will feel that they have given to a charity when they buy a lottery ticket and will therefore be less inclined to give directly to charity.
There is also the issue of the sort of images of charity work that are used in advertising material. A number of charities have made efforts to ensure that their work is presented to the public in a way that does not patronise or offend the groups of people for whom they are working. It will be important that those promoting the lottery obtain the advice of charities on how to present their work and develop good practice. That is especially important, as the advertising budget for the national lottery is likely to rival that of some of our largest corporations.
The Minister may respond by saying that our anxieties are unnecessary because the Advertising Standards Authority would be able to address such problems if they arose. The ASA has a responsibility to monitor advertisements and investigate complaints if advertising material is not legal, decent, honest or truthful. We are arguing not that the lottery promoter will make unfair claims about what proportion of the lottery proceeds will go to good causes but that lottery promotion may be of a nature that encourages the public to believe that charities will benefit more from the lottery that is actually the case. That is more intangible and difficult to monitor than the making of false claims.
Although the ASA would have a role in monitoring and responding to anxieties that lottery advertising implied exaggerated claims, we should prefer the Government to give a commitment to prepare and consult on regulations imposing restrictions on the use of charities in lottery promotion material. On the issue of the presentation of charitable work in lottery advertising, the ASA would provide some, but not sufficient, protection.
The ASA responds to complaints that advertising has caused grave or widespread offence. Therefore, it would only offer protection in some of the more extreme cases to charities anxious about how their work was being presented to the public. Although we appreciate the good work of the ASA, we consider it vital that the Government introduce specific regulations covering the way in which the lottery uses good causes in its promotional material.
The question of lottery advertising is important to charities, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The way in which the lottery is promoted will directly affect the income of the voluntary sector and will also have an impact on the public's perception of the work of charities. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment and, in consultation with the charities, to consider further the restrictions that should be placed on the use of charities in lottery promotional material.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in moving the amendment, but I fear that considerable problems of definition and practicality will be involved in the achievement of that objective. I wonder whether the right way to achieve such restraints on detrimental advertising is not through contracts with operators rather than through the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Minister considers the amendment, I invite him to reflect on the desirability of taking steps to ensure that the national lottery cannot advertise in terms that are effectively disparaging of small charities' lotteries. That will be very important in relation to scratch cards where the competition will be intense.
The national lottery will have available to it the saturating power of large-scale advertising backed by very big money. It is extremely important that the lottery should not abuse that position by suggesting to members of the public that they can win only peanuts if they buy a ticket in a charity lottery, while they can win a massive jackpot in the national lottery. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.

Mr. Cryer: It would be a good idea to incorporate the provisions in the amendment into the Bill. The power for the Secretary of State is not mandatory, it is permissive. Clause 12(1) states that the
Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision",
and clause 12(2) states:
Such regulations may in particular impose requirements or restrictions".
The Bill does not state that the Secretary of State shall impose the restrictions. The power is permissive. It is all very well for Ministers and others to talk about the existing provisons for curbing false and misleading advertising, but it takes time to implement those provisions.
If the Secretary of State is given a permissive power on the face of the Bill, he can say that if the national lottery pursues particular practices as it promotes itself which are detrimental to small lotteries, such as the lottery promoted by Bradford rugby league club at Odsal stadium, the Secretary of State can say that he will introduce regulations fairly quickly. As the Minister is aware, regulations can be introduced very rapidly.
The regulations to which I am referring relate to the negative procedure. They can be stopped only if they are


prayed against or if a revocation motion is made subsequently. The power is in the Secretary of State's hands. Knowing the object and aim of our debates, the Minister can bear our comments in mind and, if he sees abuse of the sort described tonight, he will feel bound to introduce regulations, and that will probably be sufficient to stop the abuse and exploitation which would militate against the good causes for which many local lotteries already seek to provide.
As has often been said, the national lottery will be disruptive. The national lottery will be new on the scene and it will cause many difficulties for local lotteries and for existing organisations such as the pools promoters. If that is so, the Government have a duty to provide protection for small lotteries. The amendment offers a means of incorporating that protection on the face of the Bill.
It would be extraordinary if the Minister were to reject the opportunity to have reserve powers which may never be used. If the Minister is right, they might never be used. However, if he is wrong, the powers will be contained in the legislation ready for him to operate and so end any difficulties that might occur.

Mr. Key: I believe that this is the first occasion that I have heard the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) urging a Minister to take a permissive power to himself. My initial reaction is that there must be something wrong here. I will have to resist the temptation to accept the amendment.
However, not for the first time, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has made an important contribution to the debate. I detect that his thinking on the advertising and promotion of the national lottery has moved on since the Committee stage, as has ours. We have made progress in the past five or six weeks. We have talked to a good many people about the issue, because it is clearly very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon is right: the establishment of a national lottery should not denigrate smaller lotteries, nor should such a lottery seek to market itself in a way that detracts from the success of local or charitable lotteries. One way of safeguarding against that is to market the national lottery with its own logo, thus making it clear to purchasers of tickets that they are entering that lottery.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is right to say that we should consult the charities, and other beneficiaries of the lottery, about the most appropriate way of promoting their causes. However, it is clear from the experience of successful lotteries in other countries that productive marketing depends on a number of factors—in particular, the fun of participation and the prospect of winning. The benefit gained by a good cause is a non-specific seondary effect, which serves as a non-specific reinforcement but is not a principal stimulus that can be exploited as a marketing tool.
That is why the national lottery will be clearly differentiated from lotteries whose whole purpose is to raise money for specific causes. Such lotteries have the advantage of benefiting specific causes, which encourages people to participate; if they are sensible, they will capitalise on that when the national lottery is introduced.
If a lottery operator chose to market itself primarily on the basis of the good causes that it helped, it would have

great difficulty finding an effective focus, given the wide variety of causes that would benefit. Such a campaign might lead to considerable under-performance by the lottery and the director general would then become interested in what a cursory look at lotteries abroad would suggest was an inept strategy.
I am reluctant to accept the amendment. It is too specific and not in keeping with the broad enabling thrust of the Bill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for his important contribution to the debate. We have now reached a stage in dealing with the details of the Bill which means that we have time to get it right and we shall consider the hon. Gentleman's proposals over the next year.
We shall bear in mind the problem that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I hope that he will not press the amendment; I believe that we can achieve his objective in a better way.

Mr. Pendry: As I am sure the Minister would expect, I found his reply rather disappointing. However, I believe that the issue is likely to be raised in the other place; I also take on board the Minister's assurance that the position will be monitored over the next year. He can rest assured that we shall do the same.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

APPORTIONMENT OF MONEY IN DISTRIBUTION FUND

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 9, line 16, at end insert
'and held in the Distribution Fund for that purpose'. —[Mr. Key]

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 9, line 18, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

Madam Speaker: I understand that it is convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 91, in page 9, line 20, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

No. 92, in page 9, line 22, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

No. 93, in page 9, line 24, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

No. 94, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'expenditure' to end of line 26.

No 95, in page 9, line 24, at end insert—
'(4) Until the year 2000, of each allocation specified in section 20, 5 per cent. shall be spent on projects approved by the Millennium Commission established under section 36 to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.'.

Mr. Pendry: I must say that, from the beginning, I have had difficulty with the concept of the millennium fund. According to the White Paper "A National Lottery: Raising Money for Good Causes", published last March, national lottery proceeds would benefit
arts, sport, heritage and charities".
It was last year's Conservative party manifesto that introduced the fifth beneficiary, the millennium fund. How does the manifesto describe the purpose of the fund? It says that it will be used for projects to
commemorate the start of the twenty first century and will be enjoyed by future generations.
I consider that a pretty vague and unsatisfactory description of the aim of a fund that will receive 20 per cent. of net proceeds. We hoped that the Minister would further clarify the Government's thinking on the fund in


response to probing in Committee. However, after the Committee stage, we are left with no clear idea of how eligibility for the fund might be determined.
9.45 pm
The Conservative party manifesto last year provided a list of undoubtedly worthy projects which could receive millennium fund money. They include restoring historic buildings, improving amenities of canals and rivers and bursary schemes for volunteers. However, that list makes me more dubious than ever about the worth of establishing a separate millennium fund with separate bureaucracy to administer it.
All the projects that I mentioned would surely be eligible for funding as the main beneficiaries of the lottery —arts, sport, heritage and charities. So why set up a separate and expensive bureaucracy funded from the lottery proceeds, thus reducing the total amount available for good causes, to make decisions better made by the four specialist distribution bodies?
One of the only projects mentioned in the Conservative manifesto which would not be eligible for funding for the arts, sport, heritage and charities is an international trade fair. I shall deal with another one in a moment. I know that industry in Britain is in the grip of recession, but does the Minister really believe that an international trade fair is a good cause which should be funded from lottery revenues?
The list of projects set out in the manifesto also gives rise to a more important query. I address this point to the Secretary of State. The manifesto suggested that the Manchester bid for the Olympics could receive funding. Yet that is a scheme in the pipeline and not, in our view, one which should be eligible for public support. How can the Government claim that they want to safeguard the additionality of lottery funds and then announce that a project such as the Manchester bid for the Olympics could be funded from lottery proceeds?
Opposition Members are as anxious as anyone to see the Manchester Olympic bid succeed. I have a sports portfolio and a Greater Manchester constituency, so I am as anxious as anyone to see it succeed. But the funding should be provided by the Government. They secured a high profile by acclaiming Manchester's previous unsuccessful bid when the games went to Atlanta. Chris Patten, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, gave an assurance that adequate public funding would be made available if Manchester's bid was successful. That should be the case with the current bid.
More importantly, in the context of the Bill, the Government's suggestion that the Manchester bid could receive national lottery funding highlights the Government's inconsistency on additionality. The Government's position in the Second Reading debate was clearly stated by the Secretary of State. He said:
I am excited by the potential of the millenium fund. It offers a scope for making real improvements to the face of the United Kingdom. Because it will be funded out of a new income stream, which will not count as public expenditure, the projects that we will be able to take forward will be additional to those already planned and in prospect. This will apply to the private sector as well as the public sector, for I envisage that the main large-scale projects will involve funding partnerships with the private sector."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 728.]
The Opposition concur with those remarks.
However, it would appear that Ministers, including the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister no less, are not ruling out funding from the millenium fund some of the

planned projects already submitted to the International Olympic Committee in the official bid document. Clearly, that is a breach of the Government's stated aim on additionality spelt out by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I have here documents on some of the plans that are already in the pipeline. Therefore, I ask the Minister to deal with that specific and important point.
The Bill creates three new bodies—Oflot, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission. We acknowledge the need for a lottery regulator and for a new board to distribute funding to charities, as recommended by both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations in reports on the distribution of lottery proceeds.
We do not object to setting of the Millennium Commission to assist in decision-making. However, we object to the creation of an unnecessarily large bureaucracy. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Millennium Commission will employ staff who will take decisions on projects which may be considered by the other four distributory bodies—the Arts Council, the Sports Council, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board.
May not the Minister be setting up a body which simply duplicates the work of those institutions in relation to lottery funding? Has he also considered that a further difficulty will arise because staff of the commission will not have the same expert knowledge as those employed by those institutions necessary to decide what counts as a good arts or sport project? A project could meet whatever criteria are set by the commission to receive funding, but I am at a loss if I try to speculate on just what specific criteria might be set for millennium projects. Experts in a particular sector may still consider that such projects are not of sufficient quality to be funded.
The Opposition are not killjoys. We like the idea of grants to celebrate something, even something as nebulous as the start of the next millennium. Therefore, we do not oppose the idea of the Millennium Commission, which would approve millennium project applications. We believe that it would be prudent, however, if those funding decisions were made in partnership with the specialist bodies that distribute the lottery money to the arts, sport, heritage and charities. We believe that the millennium fund should be excluded from the Bill and that the allocations to the arts, sport, heritage and charities should be increased from 20 to 25 per cent. of net proceeds.
We believe that 5 per cent. of each beneficiary allocation should be ring-fenced for millennium fund projects. Each distributory body would submit a programme or projects to the Millennium Commission, which would approve the spending of that ring-fenced 5 per cent.
Would it not give the Minister a warm glow to be able to increase the amount that will go direct to charities and other good causes at so little cost to himself? He must be only too well aware that, with a taxation rate of 12 per cent. on lottery proceeds, lottery beneficiaries are disappointed about their share. Who knows what that percentage will be after the first year of operation?
If the Minister were to accept the principle of the amendments, which represent a sensible modification to the Bill, it would increase the amount of money going direct to the distributive bodies for the arts, sport, heritage


and charities. That would be partial compensation for them for the fact that they must pay a higher level of taxation.
The proposal would mean minimal staff costs for the commission and would therefore mean that more money was in the fund to be distributed to good causes. It would also mean that the decision taken would be more likely to be sound, since projects would be referred to the commission by experts in a particular sector.
When we discussed this issue in Committee, the Minister suggested that the system proposed would result in the creation of more bureaucracy and that those seeking millennium funds would need to go, cap in hand, to eight bodies. That reveals a lack of understanding of what we are proposing. Our suggestion would result in a reduction in bureaucracy. It would mean that organisations in the arts, sport, heritage and charities would apply to one body responsible for funding rather than to two.
The Minister raised a further difficulty about the distributive bodies being restricted as to the areas of activity that could be funded through millennium resources. It was suggested that the proposal would make it more difficult to make imaginative decisions. If that is so, surely there are other ways round it than through the creation of a large bureaucracy.
I hope that the Minister will think again about the millennium projects about to be funded and will look closely at the constructive approach offered by the amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I do not agree with the Opposition proposal that the millennium fund should no longer be one of the beneficiaries of the money raised through the national lottery. I believe in the millennium fund and I believe that it will be possible to do some exciting, important things as a result of it which would not otherwise be done. I am sure that we should resist the amendment.
We are faced with a problem, however, because I am concerned that too small a proportion of the resources of the lottery will go to good causes. After all, the object of that lottery is, overridingly, to benefit such good causes.
If one breaks down the call on the proceeds, it appears that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to take 12 per cent. in tax; the Government have said that they expect 50 per cent. to go on prizes and my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he expects administrative and operational costs to range between 8 and 18 per cent.—an average of 13 per cent. That leaves only about 25 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery for good causes.
That must be divided five ways if the millennium fund is to remain among the beneficiaries. That in turn means that only 5 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery will go to charities and in most people's perception, "good causes" means charities. It is, sadly, a small proportion for good causes and particularly for charities. Then we must take into account the displacement of charitable giving which we are apprehensive that the national lottery will induce, and we are all aware that additionality is not quite cast-iron.
My hon. Friend is the Minister of pastime and pleasure and I have no desire to be a killjoy, but I find it difficult to see how the Government can justify diversion of money within our society on this enormous scale, with all this immense activity and the profits of the operators, unless a higher proportion of the money involved goes to good

causes. A year ago, the White Paper suggested that one third of the money from the lottery would go to good causes.
The Labour party proposes to address this problem by cutting out the millennium fund. I do not agree with that. There are two other ways which we could consider and which would be preferable. We could look at prizes. I understand the need to have substantial prizes—if we do not have them, the whole soufflé may collapse—but we face a dilemma. Huge prizes will increase the likelihood that charitable giving will be displaced. I am unhappy about that, because, instead of people giving 100 per cent. of their donation to charity, they will buy a lottery ticket and, at the end of the process, only 5 per cent. will go to the charity. In that sense, it is a very poor deal for charities.
What I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will be prepared to reconsider is the question of rollover. If we are to have rollover, as the Government seem determined we should, we will be looking at rollover jackpot prizes of the order of £20 million. I have seen persuasive calculations to suggest that that will be so; it could well be more. In Ireland, the average spend per head on the lottery is £72. In the United States it is $110, which is almost exactly the same. If we assume a greater native caution in this country and contemplate the possibility that expenditure will be £50 per head, the computations indicate that rollover jackpots could be as large as £40 million.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to think very carefully about what they would be doing in creating such a situation. The lure of such great prizes may provoke people's fantasies and they may flock to buy tickets, but a considerable number of our compatriots may say that there is something rather indecent about prizes on this scale and about huge sums of money being gambled in a scheme not only authorised but created by the Government. They may look at the pockets of poverty that remain in our society, even after all the enormous social progress achieved by the Government, and at the other problems in society, and ask whether it is right that such huge sums should be absorbed in a national lottery.
It is my belief that the scale of pools prizes has in the past been enough and that the national lottery could prosper sufficiently on the basis of smaller prizes and without rollover. My hon. Friend the Minister earlier in the evening said emphatically that this is not the United States of America. Quite so. We need not emulate the United States in this respect. We do not need the $118 million jackpot that the state lottery of California has created or the $106 million jackpot of Florida. The national lottery here is overridingly for good causes, and I should be happy to see a smaller proportion of its turnover go on prizes and more on good causes.
I appreciate that prizes must be attractive, but we should not overdo it. I would he happy to contemplate a smaller turnover and a higher proportion of that turnover going to good causes, if that were necessary. The object should be not to maximise the total take of the lottery, but to maximise the amount that goes to good causes. So I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the question of rollover.
We could use another angle of attack to deal with the problem that the amendment seeks to tackle: how to increase the proportion that goes to good causes. We can look at the tax treatment of the lottery. I suggest the Minister encourage the Chancellor to adjust his approach to taxing winnings instead of what he proposes to do.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) ,
That, at this day's sitting, the National Lottery etc. Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Howarth: In the United States of America, the tax on winnings is often as high as 30 per cent. The public there seem to accept that, even though the culture does not favour high taxes. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor sought to justify the 12 per cent. rate on the basis that it would compensate the Treasury for income lost on account of the national lottery.
I was surprised by this proposition and I should be interested to know my right hon. Friend's evidence for it. It would be helpful if he revealed it. Surely the national lottery will generate additional revenue for the Exchequer, especially downstream tax revenues based on construction activity and a host of other activities that will be generated —even administrative and operational activities associated with the lottery will yield resources for the Exchequer: income tax paid by national lottery employees, VAT on purchases and so on.
I therefore anticipate that the revenue that the Chancellor will receive, generated by the lottery, will be significantly more than the 12 per cent. figure that he gave us. He will probably take in tax from the national lottery three or four times the amount that will go to charities.
Public expenditure is no doubt a good cause, at least in nearly every instance, but I submit that the public may take it amiss if they begin to perceive the national lottery as disguised extra taxation. The real good causes should not be an obscure residual, the poor relations to the Exchequer in the competititon for funds from the lottery. Ultimately, society's evaluation of the national lottery and the Government's policies in this regard will be based on its effect on good causes.
If Ministers are not prepared to write into the Bill the commitment that I have sought in an unselected amendment, that 35 per cent. of the turnover from the lottery should go to good causes, will they at least undertake to write that into the contract with the operator? Although I oppose the Opposition amendment, which would remove the millennium fund from the ranks of the beneficiaries, as a means of ensuring that enough can go to charities, the arts, sport and heritage, I ask Ministers to look again at this problem.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on this issue. He has said, in much the same vein as many of his colleagues in the Committee said, that it is desirable to try to ensure that between 30 and 35 per cent. of the total take goes to good causes. We discussed this subject at some length in Committee, so it is not worth detaining the House further, except to say that I am confident that the Minister has realised that Conservative as well as Opposition Members want a larger take for good causes.
I would only ask the Minister to assure the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that the

very purpose of the arm's-length commission for the millennium fund is to ensure its independence. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) for his contribution. The Millennium Commission is an arm's-length organisation and I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to that. I should like to think carefully about the wide-ranging speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). However, I can say at once that I shall have to disappoint him in terms of writing a 35 per cent. figure into any contract, let alone into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has said that the Government will produce proposals on rollover. They will be considered in another place.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked me to address the issue of Manchester's bid for the Olympics. The Millennium Commission is an independent body and will make its own decisions in the light of the quality of the applications it receives. There is no possibility of the Government allocating any money for a specific project, whether a facility for the Manchester Olympics or anything else. Legitimate applications for funding from the Millennium Commission will be judged by the commission, on which Ministers would be in a small minority. The hon. Member for Stalybride and Hyde will recall that I conceded that in Committee.
A substantial amount of public money is already committed to Manchester's bid. When Manchester wins —hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies are in no doubt about that—there will be substantially more money. Perhaps one of the special or one-off projects for the Manchester games in the year 2000 would be appropriate for an application. It will not be in my gift to say whether it will succeed. The arguments in Committee about additionality and the Manchester games were thorough and I have nothing to add to them.
The amendments seek fundamentally to alter a key provision in the Bill to establish a commission to mark the beginning of the third millennium and the year 2000. Far from having a rosy cheek if I accepted the amendment, I would undoubtedly have a blush of shame at deserting an important national lottery objective, which is to find an appropriate way to mark the new millennium for the nation.
The Bill as drafted establishes an independent commission, appointed by the Queen and free to make its own decisions on spending from a discrete pot of money that will form 20 per cent. of the lottery proceeds until the end of the year 2000. There is provision to extend the amount of time during which money will flow into the funds in order to allow funding to continue for projects that overrun. This is clearly prudent and it is not, I hasten to add, an invitation to profligacy. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a half-finished millennium project which no funding could be found to finish would be regarded less as a memorial to the achievements of the previous millennium than a monument to folly and the short-sightedness of the House.
I have been at pains to point out that the United Kingdom national lottery and the benefits accruing from it should be set in the context of a vision of improved


quality of life for the whole nation. The amendments seek to blinker some of that vision and to change the character of the Millennium Commission and of the Bill as a whole.
The provisions are also impractical. We envisage that millennium projects should consist of a small number of large projects and a larger number of small projects, which might be of local significance, as well as bursaries, which might be for people from particular walks of life to undertake work within the United Kingdom on projects that will enhance their contribution to the community on its completion. However, exactly how the money is used will be a matter for the commissioners themselves. They will take a bold, forward-looking approach to their task, and it is important that they they have discretion in this area.
I have already said that they will fund a small number of large projects. They need access to reasonably large funds to do this, and a reasonably free canvas on which to work. Going cap in hand to eight or more bodies for money to spend and being constrained over areas to work within will not make for imaginative decision making. If the bodies were tardy in releasing funds, a mechanism to require them to do so would be necessary. There might be a need for appeal machinery and so on. We should be creating a bureaucratic framework for what is a simple process, already effectively provided for in the Bill as drafted.
I regret that I cannot agree to the amendments. They are outside the spirit and vision of the Bill and would fundamentally alter its purpose. I am not willing to accede to that.

Mr. Pendry: That was a disappointing reply. My hon. Friends have told me that the Minister was saying no. He missed the point about what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on the Manchester Olympics bid, which was that no lottery money would go into the planned projects. That will not be the case. The matter will run and run—but not now, as it is obvious that the House wishes to make progress. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 9, line 19, at end insert 'including films,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 119, in page 9, line 19, at end insert—
'including films, for which purpose monies shall be allocated to the British Film Institute and the National Film Corporation.'.

No. 120, in page 9, line 25, leave out '20' and insert '5'.

No. 121, in page 9, line 26, at end insert;
'and
(f) 15 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure for the purposes of film, to be divided between the British Film Institute and a body established for the purpose of assisting British film production and approved by the Secretary of State under directions provided in section 21.'.

No. 104, in page 9, line 28, clause 21, after 'arts', insert 'and film'.

No. 193, in page 9, line 29, leave out '97.2' and insert '82.2'.

No. 103, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert'

who shall distribute such proportion as they think appropriate for the purposes of film'.

No. 122, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert
'who shall distribute such proportion as they think appropriate for the purposes of film between the British Film Institute and the National Film Corporation'.

No. 198, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert
'who shall distribute not less than 15 per cent. for the purposes of film to the British Film Institute'.

No. 194, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert—
'(aa) as to 15 per cent. for distribution by a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, for expenditure on or connected with film, and'.

Mr. Corbett: The amendments bring us to the British film industry. The House will recall that we could hear the cheers down Whitehall when the Secretary of State expressed his delight at the six Oscars that British entries took at last month's awards and then claimed that that demonstrated that Britain was "a centre of excellence" for cinema film production. It is true that we have excellent writers, producers and directors, but they work mainly for foreign earnings in foreign lands. The film industry is in crisis.

Mr. Key: Nonsense.

Mr. Corbett: I hope that the Under-Secretary will listen to the facts behind that assertion.
Last year, just one big feature film, "City of Joy", was made here. As to the Oscars, most of the cash for "Howards End" and "The Crying Game" came from abroad, with British contributions limited to welcome slices from Channel 4. There is nothing the matter with that. I am not complaining. I am asserting that we do not do enough to ensure that more films are made in Britain, whether by British producers, writers and directors or anyone else. Fewer and fewer genuinely British films are being made by the cinema. Only 15 cinema films were made last year by British production companies. Some 59 films were shot, but most were low-budget, partly financed by television and consequently with limited cinema potential.
As Derek Malcolm, the distinguished film correspondent of The Guardian commented after the Oscar awards:
If we do well"—
that is, the British film industry—
the government suggests that we don't need assistance. If we don't, the government complains that we hardly deserve support.
That is about the length of it.
Although we welcome the round of talks about the future of the film industry on which the Secretary of State has embarked, we want that talking followed by action. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister:
our film industry could be even more succesful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries".
By that, he meant capital allowances and tax breaks that many, if not most, other European countries offer to those making films.
The Prime Minister's response was somewhat mean-spirited. He said:
Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers' money".—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 122, c. 152.]
No one is asking for subsidy in that sense. Alongside what the Government decide separately to do, the amendments are designed to ensure that our film industry, especially its


independent sector in production, distribution and exhibition, gets a proper share of the cash available for the arts from the national lottery.
When that matter was debated, the Under-Secretary of State said that a special Arts Council committee, including film industry representatives, would be established to deal with the allocation of money from the lottery. He undertook to reconsider the arrangements for distribution to film but alas, despite talks with the British Film Institute and other bodies, no changes were proposed.
10.15 pm
The present arrangements are not believed to be sufficient. The Arts Council remit on film, as the Under-Secretary of State well knows, is very narrow and confined to activities relating to avant garde films and documentaries about artists. Of course those have their place, but the arrangements do not begin to address the problem confronting the British film industry. In any event, the Arts Council is far detached from the industry.
The BFI argues that there is a need to assess how the development of film and video should proceed across the whole country and to back that with lottery distribution. It adds:
If the present proposal is maintained, we fear that film will continue to be treated as the poor relation within the national funding system.
The amendments seek, on behalf of the BFI, to establish a separate film committee of the Arts Council's lottery committee, so that people with expertise and knowledge of the industry can help direct where lottery moneys can best be spent to support it. That sub-committee should examine applications for funding relating to film and video and make recommendations to the Arts Council's main lottery committee. The Minister will be aware that such an arrangement does not fully meet the film industry's wishes, but it does go with the grain of the Bill.
I hope that the Government feel able to accept the spirit of the amendments, if not to the letter, and will agree that such an arrangement can be sensibly considered and made in the year before the lottery comes into force. That would give another signal to the industry that the Government do more than talk and generally want to act to help the British film industry.

Mr. Cryer: I shall concentrate my remarks on amendments Nos. 119 to 122 and 198, which I tabled and which fall into two categories, and declare my interest as a governor of the British Film Institute. Although I am very pleased to hold that office, I hasten to add that I receive no remuneration—I just have the pleasure of taking part in the work of the most important body in the country working for the preservation and promotion of the visual arts.
Being the Member of Parliament for Bradford, South, I represent the city that is the home of the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, which is extremely successful. A new cinema, Pictureville, also opened there recently—and that cannot have happened in many cities. Pictureville is promoted by the museum and has become a centre of interest and importance for film and television.
As a matter of historical interest, the major office of what used to be Gaumont British was centred in Bradford. It was promoted by the Ostrer brothers, who were very big in the wool industry as the owners of a firm called Salts

(Saltaire) Ltd. As one of them was a socialist, he offered the whole Gaumont British film circuit and the Gaumont British film studios to Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Government, who told him firmly that they did not think that Governments should have anything to do with film production. We have come a long way since then. The Ostrer brothers developed that great circuit from their offices in Bradford. I want to persuade the Minister that the Government should have something to do with promoting film archive work, promotion work and representation of the industry work and with the production of films.
My amendments provide for a reduction in the Millennium Commission's funds and for the allocation of money to film—to be divided between the British Film Institute and a national film corporation. They also provide for money to be provided directly to the BFI from the section allocated to the arts. An allocation percentage is provided for. I point that out so that the Minister will have plenty of alternatives on which to draw when making the sympathetic reply that I know he will wish to make.
It is important to emphasise that this money is not designed to be a substitute for existing grant aid on which the BFI exists. Therefore, I draw the Minister's attention to the purpose for which this money for the BFI, if supplemented, could be used. At the Elstree studios near Borehamwood, film archives for the old Associated British Picture Corporation were established. When the old ABP studios were sold off to Cannon, Cannon sold off the film archives—the visual treasures of our nation's history, going back to the 1890s—to an American company, the Weintraub Organisation.
Elstree studios were sold off by Cannon, and some of the ground area has been converted into a supermarket. The result is that the film archives are being transferred elsewhere. The BFI wanted to buy those precious film archives, for they represent living history, animated in a way that has never been possible before. These precious assets belong to our nation. Although it made an effort, the BFI did not have sufficient money, from its existing grant, to purchase those precious millions of feet of film and preserve them for the nation, although that is the very purpose for which the Department of National Heritage is designed. When archive material of that nature becomes available in future, lottery money could be used to obtain it. However, those archives have been sold off to a French firm, Le Studio Canal.
If film archives were considered to be works of art, an export licence would be required if somebody wanted to export that material, but no export licence is required to export film. Many great British films are regarded by everybody as works of art. It is the most popular form of artistic culture that we have ever achieved. It touches more people than any other art form. It combines all the arts into one medium which, at its best, can be the most powerful medium that humanity has known, yet those millions of feet have simply gone outside our control. The allocation of lottery money to the BFI could be used for that important purpose.
Let us take another example—the archives at Berkhamsted, where precious film which has been purchased, allocated or donated to the British Film Institute is carefully preserved. As the House is no doubt aware, though, until the mid-1950s, film was developed on cellulose nitrate stock. Cellulose nitrate stock is fragile. It has the extraordinary and very disturbing property of


being self-combustible at certain stages of degeneration. If, therefore, films are to be preserved, they have to be transferred to cellulose acetate stock, which is not subject to that degenerating process and is permanent.
The problem is that the transfer process is costly and is being undertaken by the BFI from its existing funds. We hope that the money allocated by the Arts Council to the BFI will be a fixed percentage, if the Minister agrees, so that the BFI can calculate what sort of programme it can undertake and the transfer programme can be undertaken with money which is not part of the BFI's existing grant. That would mean that, if there were any serious deterioration in the nitrate stock, the stock could be transferred much more rapidly. I mention that as an example of what the BFI and other bodies could undertake if there were an allocation of funds from the lottery beyond their grant aid, which would give them more certainty for the future.
I know that it is late; the Minister should not frown about that, because the Government should have realised that such important legislation would be subject to scrutiny on Report. It is right and proper that the House should spend some time on this examination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned film production. Some of my amendments would allow for an allocation to an organisation developed for the promotion of British film production and to the BFI, or to the BFI alone. The British Screen Advisory Council sent me a proposal for film production which, in essence, involves the development of a national film corporation. It was only a proposal, so the amendments provide for the creation of a body that could be authorised by the Secretary of State to allocate money. The amendments are highly flexible, which means that the Minister has a number of choices.
Film production is very important. The United States has two major exports. Aerospace items are first on the list and film and television programmes are second. They create revenue but also a cascade effect for a range of products. If British films are selling well abroad, the likelihood is that British aerospace items, British textiles and British engineering will benefit from their success. If the films are seen by millions of people—they will be if they are successful—they can establish a benchmark of excellence. That is what has happened in the United States because of the success of its manufacturing technology. It is not a question of production for production's sake—it is a matter of our national presence in the rest of the world.
We have the advantage of speaking English. The American market is the biggest English-speaking market in the world. It is worth bearing it in mind that this country has unsurpassed standards of technical excellence. That is why Steven Spielberg produced so many films here before the erosion of the capital allowances reduced the American presence in this country.
Spielberg attended a meeting in the House and I asked him whether it was true that, despite the fact that America has a great history of making classic films which we have all had the pleasure of enjoying, the standards of technical excellence in this country were as good as or, in many cases, better than those in the United States. Spielberg answered that it was true: the standards of technical excellence in this country are better because of our system

of apprenticeship and the gradation of age. Older, more experienced people can pass on knowledge to younger people in the industry. If we have no British film industry and no British film production—we are already reaching that stage—the reservoir of knowledge and expertise will be eroded.
In 1991 there were 59 feature films, in 1992 there were 42, and as for this year, Screen Finance, produced by the Financial Times on 24 March 1993, said:
Just four films involving British production companies and intended for a theatrical release are likely to have gone before the cameras by the end of the first quarter of 1993, according to information collected by Screen Finance. The figure, which includes three co-productions, is six fewer than in the comparable period in 1992 and five fewer than in the first three months of 1991".
So the prospect is not hopeful.
10.30 pm
The British Screen Advisory Council suggests that, especially in view of an increase in cinema admissions in this country from the low of 53 million in 1984 to more than 100 million in 1992, a national film corporation should be established on the basis of the successful period of the firm EMI, in which it had a pre-selling arrangement with the United States for five successful major feature films—"The Deer hunter", "Death on the Nile", "Convoy", "Warlords of Atlantis" and "The Driver". Only when EMI began to promote its own films in the United States did it pursue a disastrous production course, and it then lost about £90 million.
The company's earlier success was achieved on a basic budget of $9 million, which produced a gross profit of about $24 million for EMI, irrespective of the additional profit for the United States. That is the basis proposed by the British Screen Advisory Council, but that sort of money is needed to start things off.
A criticism of the EMI programme is that it could be argued that, apart from "Death on the Nile", the films involved were much closer to the United States than to indigenous British life and did not reflect our aims, culture and ambitions—which they should have done. However, on the back of successful co-productions, we could have smaller productions that reflected our way of life—films such as "Gregory's Girl", which was made for £350,000 10 years or so ago, and took more than £2 million.
My amendments cover such a proposal, and I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically because, as a result of various failures which I do not have the time to enumerate—Goldcrest was a symbol of over-expenditure and financial failure, as subsequently was EMI, as I have just explained—the film industry now has a proposal for a potential success, but only if it receives help from the Government through the lottery. The Minister may say that that is not the Government's policy, but other nations in the English-speaking world are providing the help that has supplied the basis for export success. We have only to consider Australia to realise that its film production industry has been successful because of a basis of central and state government help.
I hope that the Minister will consider my proposal sympathetically. We must bear in mind the fact that, as he has repeated several times, he is considering the whole period of 12 months over which the lottery will be brought into operation. Proposals such as mine could be incorporated into the legislation so that we could both give the British Film Institute the extra money with which it


could do so much to preserve our film and cinema heritage and enable British film production to get off the ground again—I must tell the Minister that it is on its knees at the moment.

Sir Anthony Durant: As the other governor of the British Film Institute, from the Government side, I should like to contribute to this short debate.
There is no doubt that there are concerns in the film industry about the lottery and the way in which it is being handled. When the Government were returned at the general election, the industry welcomed the policy of having one Department to look after it. That was a great step forward, for which the industry had pressed for years. It was fed up with being handled partly by the Department of Trade and Industry, partly by the Education Department and partly by the Home Office. Being looked after by three Departments made it difficult for the industry to get its cause before the Government, so it welcomes as a great step forward the fact that there was to be only one Department.
The film industry has also welcomed the discussions that it is having with the Secretary of State. However, it feels that, because the Minister is suggesting that the money will go through the Arts Council, it will be sidestepped and will not have the opportunity to put its own case and to get its own money. The British Film Institute does not have great confidence that the Arts Council really looks after it. The institute feels that the Arts Council does not entirely understand films. Why not have a specialist committee to distribute money to the film industry? I urge the Minister to consider that point again.
The film industry remains a mixture of an art form, an entertainment medium, an educator and a big business. It is the art form—the cultural form—about which we are talking principally tonight. We need a greater British input to highlight our national heritage and culture. We make very good films when we are given the opportunity, and they do very well. However, the opportunities to make such films are diminishing. Distribution is one of the difficulties we face, although that is a side issue in this debate.
We should put more money from the lottery towards the film industry by the methods that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has mentioned to the BFI. I urge the Department to talk to the Treasury. The classification of film as a capital item some years ago revived the British film industry. It really got going, but then the scheme was stopped. It was a wonderful opportunity. An opportunity was created for people to invest money in the film industry, which is the key to it all, and it got the film industry going again.
We could use some of the lottery money on the Children's Film Foundation. It is a tragedy that the television companies do not make films for children, but only children's programmes. The foundation has done a remarkable job over the years in making very suitable films for children, especially for the Saturday morning matinees. That is a positive, educational and constructive area into which we could put some of the lottery money. I urge the Department to look again at the proposals for the film industry and at the way in which the money is distributed.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) for his contribution,

and to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend raised some important and interesting issues. I shall consider the question of the Children's Film Foundation and learn about its contribution. It is clearly a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend asked why we could not have a sub-committee for film. In a nutshell, the answer is that, if we had a sub-committee for film, we should have to have a sub-committee for every other branch of the arts. That would be wasteful and would not address the problem of how best to provide a fair distribution of resources within the 20 per cent. category for the arts as a whole. I take the point that the world of film feels that the Arts Council does not love it. That notion has been around for a long while. I do not intend to comment on the substance or otherwise of it. Nevertheless, it is a perception that we cannot ignore. I shall explain how we shall seek to address that point.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a very helpful contribution, and I am grateful to him for raising what he described as right and proper concerns even at this hour. I take on board what he says about Elstree. I recall my visit to Pinewood not so long ago, when I met a number of the interests there. I was, as ever, impressed by the capability and competence of our production centres. I include in the same breath Shepperton, which still makes a remarkable contribution and is very much part of our heritage. It is well represented by its Member of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), who is here tonight.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South also drew attention to the interesting ideas in the amendment. We shall think about them. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's various suggestions.
I shall disappoint the House by not accepting wholesale—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or retail."] or, indeed, retail—the amendments on offer tonight, and I shall seek to explain why. I shall also seek to explain why I am prepared to listen and to work during the next 12 months to ensure that we get the answers right.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated a new round of discussions with the film industry. We have already had the first session, and we shall have another tomorrow, and a number are planned for the coming weeks. We are very much in listening mode and have specifically asked the film producers—and will ask the industry more widely—to think for themselves and then to share with us thoughts about the ways in which we might legitimately make progress on the issue of the national lottery.
I am well aware of the importance of the United Kingdom film industry; that goes without saying. I enjoy as much as anyone else taking my family to the cinema, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently went to a cinema in my constituency to see an excellent British film. I am very proud of what the industry has been able to achieve. Although Oscars do not mean everything, those awarded recently mark the success of the United Kingdom film industry, which has been very significant of late. As the House knows, we support the film industry in a number of ways.
In the Bill, we have chosen to use one body—the Arts Council—to distribute lottery money to the arts. We are quite clear that the arts include film and crafts. We decided that it would not be practical to use a specific film sub-committee, because if we did that for film, we would have to do it for every other sector of the arts: there is no


reason why we should not multiply the number of distribution bodies in other sectors to follow that argument. In effect, we would be opening the floodgates, and I do not think that that would be an effective way to proceed.
Under clause 24, we will direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film and craft applications and we will generally direct the Arts Council and other distribution bodies that, if they do not have specific expertise in a particular area, they should seek it from a relevant expert body—unless, of course, that expert body is the one applying for the funding.
In considering applications for lottery funding, the Arts Council proposes to use a special lottery committee which will have on it at least one member with expertise on film and one with expertise on crafts. Those members will call on the advice of many expert bodies, such as—but not exclusively—the British Film Institute, to help them to make their decisions. We think that that provides a very flexible framework within which film stands to benefit a great deal from lottery proceeds.
I fully accept the spirit of amendments Nos. 102 to 104, although I hope to reassure the House that they are unnecessary. The Arts Council charter makes it clear that the council can fund film. I have said that, under clause 24, we will direct that it should fund applications from the film and craft sectors. In its annual report on how it has distributed the lottery proceeds, the council will have to publish the directions and demonstrate achievement against those directions. If film is not being given a fair share, it will be quite clear to the House.
On a practical level, it is now up to the Arts Council and the interested bodies to work together to find the best way to develop the film element. There is a read-across to other areas: the Sports Council will clearly be able to fund football and hockey from its lottery allocation, but we do not need—nor do we want—to specify that in the Bill.
Co-operation and a willingness to work constructively and with enthusiasm for the task are the key, as is an ability to use imagination and to regard the lottery money as a new source of funding that should be considered in a new way. Organisations, whether in the film world or in other areas, should not look to lottery funds as a means of financing long-cherished grant strategies or as a source of core funding. The intention of the lottery is to develop projects that are developed from the ground, not dictated as part of some grant plan. That is why I was especially grateful for the practical suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
The House should remember that, once the Bill is passed, the Arts Council and film representatives will have a year or so to get things right and to work out a suitable system to enable film to benefit to its maximum potential.
I cannot accept amendments Nos. 119 to 122, as they bring into play two additional bodies, including one which does not at the moment exist. The British Film Institute is very important and that is why we choose to allocate to it £15 million a year. However, it is only one player in the varied world of film and to name a particular body in the world of film in respect of the amendment would, to say the least, be a source of contention.
The BFI has a clear opportunity to work with the Arts Council and to discover the best way to distribute money

for film within the framework offered by the Bill. The amendments also suggest removing most of the allocation of lottery proceeds from the Millennium Commission and giving them to film outside the arts allocation. I cannot accept that. The Millennium Commission is an intrinsic part of the Bill and film will clearly receive funding from the arts element.
10.45 pm
The amendment specifically mentions film production. The Bill does not rule out the possibility of funding film production. The exact use to which lottery money should be put will be for the distribution body to establish with the expert bodies in the film world. At the Secretary of State's first meeting on film last week, we specifically asked the film producers to work out ideas on how they believe lottery money might reasonably be applied. That will be of great assistance to the Arts Council, which will, in any case, consult widely about how money for film should be distributed.
We have an open mind and believe that the provisions in the Bill provide a wide canvas to create an excellent distribution mechanism that will work to the best advantage of film. I hope that I can persuade hon. Members not to press the amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure them that we understand the problems of the film industry and that we will understand them better after we have completed our round of consultation.
As the Minister responsible for film, I will of course be paying the usual visit to the Cannes film festival. I expect no tears about that. It will be an extremely hectic and short weekend and I am warned that there will be no time for fun. Later in the year I will visit Paris and Berlin with David Puttnam to learn more about their industries. I will go with him so that I get the proper perspective.
I hasten to add that, following the examples of the French and the Germans, who have particular problems in having lesser used languages, does not necessarily mean that we would wish to emulate exactly what they do. Film producers have repeatedly stressed to us that they are not simply coming with a begging bowl looking for subsidy. They have a sophisticated and precise range of requests to which we are listening.
I have described a distribution mechanism that we have constructed which I believe will deliver to film and crafts a fair share of lottery proceeds.

Mr. Corbett: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply.
This has been a helpful and useful debate with some extremely informed contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) with their great interest in the film industry.
The Minister's remarks are helpful, as they were designed to be, not least perhaps to the Arts Council, which will know that the film industry expects more than a nodding acquaintance in the distribution of lottery moneys under its auspices. The Minister is right to say that in no sense should the film industry look to lottery funds to take on the bulk of whatever may be decided as a result of the Secretary of State's consultations with the film industry and the propositions that it makes about how the Government may better help the industry. I understand that important distinction.
On the back of the Oscar awards, it does not help to say that they mark the success of the British film industry. The most that can be claimed is that they mark the success and excellence of a number of individuals in the British film industry which collectively is, and should be, more important than that. I am not knocking the contribution that those individuals and their colleagues made in the winning of Oscars, but that is no substitute for us having a properly based and organised British film industry.
The consultations in which the right hon. Gentleman is engaging with all branches of the industry prompts us all to ask whether we really want a British film industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South demonstrated—I know that he could have said a great deal more—it is not simply a question of what the British film industry can do in terms of our own popular culture, important though that is; it is a question of our ability to do what we have done so successfully in the past through the medium of film. Those films—many sadly, made in black and white—said so much about the Britain of that period. In a sense, they represent a sort of visual BBC World Service—but we should also see films as many of our European partners do: as a source of revenue for the industry and the country.
The debate has been worth while, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. I am sure that he appreciates that this is not the last that we shall hear of the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 20 page 9, line 21, at end insert
'of which some proportion shall be allocated for expenditure on or in connection with football'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 15, in clause 21, page 9, line 35, at end insert
'who shall distribute such proportion as they I think appropriate to the Footbal Trust'.

Mr. Pendry: Rather than speaking to the amendments, I had hoped to be returning from Wembley after cheering on our national side. I had to give the tickets back; I hope that someone will shout out the score before I finish speaking.
The amendments go to the heart of a vital issue. We must ensure that, in introducing a national lottery, we safeguard the interests of football in this country. I hope that the Minister shares my view that football has particular needs which must be taken into account: it is our national game, and it is an important part of the fabric of many people's lives.
Happily, the game is thriving at all levels, from the very top of the professional game down to junior boys' and—in these enlightened times—girls' teams. Football has no parallel in terms of the extent and depth of participation; and, of course, no sport has such spectator appeal. The huge following that the game attracts represents a special dimension when we consider the needs of the sport.
It is right for the Government, and all of us, to take every possible step to ensure that our football grounds are safe. Clubs must meet the requirements laid down by Lord Justice Taylor in his report following the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, and ensure that spectators enjoy the standards of safety and comfort that they have every right to expect. I have no quarrel with any of that, but we must recognise that football faces a huge task in converting

grounds to all-seated accommodation, and—in the lower divisions of the Football League and in Scotland—ensuring that any retained standing terracing is safe.
A great deal of ground development work has still to be done, and football faces an enormous bill in completing it —probably as much as £400 million in the years ahead. The traditional source of funds for football—indeed, until the recent television agreements, virtually the only source —has been the football pools. That is one of the main reasons why all my hon. Friends—and, I suggest, many Conservative Members as well—are so insistent that there must be fair competition between the pools and the national lottery. The lottery gives us the chance to do more for football, and that is the purpose of these amendments.
How can the funds best be channelled into the game? That is no easy task, as the Minister recognises. The needs and resources of clubs vary enormously. Clubs at the grass roots need basic facilities like pitches and changing rooms; as we move up the leagues, the requirements become greater. Certifying authorities are rightly concerned about safety and crowd control; that concern is reflected at the lower levels of the league as well as at the top. Many conference and feeder league clubs need to undertake major ground redevelopment work for safety reasons and to meet league requirements.
Fortunately, we have the Football Trust, a body vastly experienced in the complex matter of grant aid in football. I am sure that we are all aware of the crucially important work carried out by the trust. It provides essential help to football clubs from the top level to the grass roots of the game throughout the country. It has provided more than £150 million in grant aid to football at all levels since it started life as the Football Grounds Improvement Trust in 1975.
In 1990, the Government reduced pool betting duty by 2·5 per cent. on the understanding that the funds produced —some £20 million a year for each of the five years for which the agreement with the Government runs—would be used to help clubs to meet the requirements of the Taylor report.
The Government chose the trust as the vehicle for channelling much-needed support into the game. The Opposition fully understood why that decision was made. The trust has a long history of distributing grant aid money. It has tackled its priority task of helping clubs to implement Taylor. It has particularly helped clubs in the premier league and first division of the Football League to convert their grounds to all-seated accommodation. That has been a great success.
Grants totalling more than £63 million have been made to major ground redevelopment works, costing some £235 million. All that has been achieved with the interests of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and accountability firmly in mind. The trust has proven procedures in place involving professional surveyors and accountants designed to ensure the proper appraisal of clubs' plans. It has an annual budget of more than £36 million and a staff of only nine. Its administration overheads account for less than 2 per cent. of its income.
I have seen a letter, as I am sure the Minister has, from Sir Peter Yarranton, the chairman of the Sports Council, to Lord Aberdare, the chairman of the Football Trust, in which he acknowledges the position of the trust in channelling funds to football clubs. He says in his letter:
the Football Trust is clearly the appropriate organisation to continue its excellent and highly regarded work in this sector. 


I envisage that the Sports Council for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would each wish to devote a significant share of their lottery revenues to annual allocation of the Football Trust, taking full advantage of your well tested methods of appraisal and allocation."
I quote that letter because it describes perfectly the sensible position that the Opposition wish to reach. I look forward to the Minister's commendation of it.
The Government have said that once they are satisfied that the football leagues and clubs are playing their full part in meeting the cost of ground redevelopment work from their own resources, they will extend the life of the reduction in pool betting duty for a further five years from 1995, to match the Taylor timetable. Football has already demonstrated that it is taking its responsibilities seriously and providing a reasonable part of the cost of redeveloping grounds from its own resources. I hope that football and the trust will not have to wait much longer for confirmation that the life of the betting duty concession is to be extended.
The point of the amendment is to say to the Minister that the Sports Council does not have a relationship with professional football and needs the assistance of a football trust and people with expertise to channel the moneys into the proper quarter.
Someone has told me that the score is England 2 Holland 2. I say that for the benefit of the Minister, but he knows already. I hope that the Minister accepts that we need a professional body linked with the Sports Council which can channel the money effectively to ensure that our football grounds are safe in line with Lord Justice Taylor's report. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who is a Derby County supporter, agrees with me.

Mr. Key: I believe that we all agree about the importance of football as our national sport. In the past week, the saga of Gazza's knee has been a source of great concern to many people in England. The capacity crowd at Wembley has carried the burden of anxiety for many people tonight as England played Holland and drew, 2–2.
Other national teams of the countries of the United Kingdom were facing similar challenges tonight. Scottish hearts were turned to Portugal; Scotland, I fear, went down 5–0; the hopes of Wales were set on the Czech Republic, where the team drew; 1–1 while Northern Irish eyes were directed to Spain, where, unfortunately, their team went down 3–1.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Can we have the rugby league results as well?

11 pm

Mr. Key: Later.
The prospect of all four nations being represented at the world cup in the United States next year is rather a faint one at the moment.
I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I am reluctant to agree to it. It would have many undesirable consequences. For example, to single out

professional football for special treatment might be highly contentious—some hon. Members in the Chamber might agree—and could be detrimental to other sports.
The argument against singling out one potential beneficiary in the Bill was put when we discussed the film industry. I do not accept that, as a result of the lottery, the pools will suffer and so the income of the Football Trust will fall. I do not accept that, given competent management, the pools should suffer as a result of the national lottery. The changes already made to the pools regime places it in a far better competitive position than it has ever occupied. It would not be surprising if the pools increased its current turnover.
The income for the Football Trust comes partly from the 2·5 per cent. pools betting duty, contributed by the Treasury, and a contribution from the spot-the-ball competition organised by that happy band of Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters. That is a proper contribution to the game, without which that band's competition could not exist.
It would not be right to name the Football Trust as a beneficiary in the Bill, but we are determined that football should be able to benefit from the lottery. It has been suggested that, as the Sports Council has not funded football hitherto, it will not do so in the future. That is not so.
How football clubs use their programme money is dictated by a set of priorities according to the level of resources available. Those clubs will, of course, be able to apply for funds from the lottery and it will give them far greater sums to use, according to applications received. Applications by that sport will be judged, genuinely, on their merits. The Football Trust will also continue to carry out its valuable work. That means that the sport will be in an extremely good position.
The amendment is unnecessary. We have no doubt that those connected with football will be able to apply for funds and that the Sports Council will do its duty. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will not press his amendment to a vote.

Mr. Pendry: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply.
The Minister has missed the point completely. In Committee, I asked him if he would endeavour to build a bridge between football and the Sports Council and he said that he would. I had expected him to give a much more positive response tonight.
I support the Sports Council, but its staff do not have the necessary expertise to do the jobs that football requires to be done as a result of Government legislation, no less. The sport therefore needs a much more positive response from the Minister. I hope that he will reflect on the matter.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I should like to visit the Minister, if he will receive me, to put the case more clearly, if I did not do so tonight, because he has missed the point. I shall then try to offer him a better explanation of our argument. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

National Lottery etc, Bill

Clause 21

THE DISTRIBUTING BODIES

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 9, line 27, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.

No. 31, in page 9, line 28, at end insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 32, in page 9, line 33, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.

No. 33, in page 9, line 34, at end insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 34, in page 9, line 42, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.

No. 35, in page 9, line 43, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 36, in page 10, line 1, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.

No. 37, in page 10, line 2, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 38, in page 10, line 4, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.

No. 39, in page 10, line 6, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 23

APPLICATION OF MONEY BY DISTRIBUTING BODIES

Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 12, leave out from 'body' to 'for' in line 13 and insert 'shall distribute any money paid to it under section 22'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Amendment No. 11, inclause 24, page 10, leave out lines 33 to 35.
Government amendments Nos. 43 to 47.
Amendment No. 22, in clause 24, page 10, line 45, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall, before making directions under subsection (1) and (3), consult the parties concerned and publish reasons for the making of such directions.'.

Mr. Key: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon may wish to speak to his amendments Nos. 11 and 22, which are grouped with amendment No. 40. That is certainly acceptable to me, if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is acceptable to you.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend made it clear that we were considering how the drafting of parts of clause 24 might be changed. In Committee I undertook to table amendments which would take account of some of the concerns expressed to us. The first change that we propose—amendment No. 42—would change the contents of directions which I might give to the distributing bodies. The original draft of the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to direct bodies as to the purposes for which the money might be distributed or applied and adds the conditions which must be satisfied before money is distributed or applied.
We have listened carefully to the concerns of potential beneficiaries and of disinterested parties that, under these powers, a Secretary of State might be unnecessarily

prescriptive. It is certainly not the intention to be so, but I understand that the original drafting gave cause for concern and that the distributing bodies might be presented with either a shopping list which they would be required to fund or with a long list of proscribed projects.
We propose, therefore, to replace the current subsection (1) of the clause with the one now on the amendment paper. This new subsection will enable the Secretary of State only to direct the bodies on matters which must be taken into account in distribution decisions. With this amendment there is no scope for the Secretary of State effectively to take the distribution decision himself. However, he will be able to set broad criteria for applications, for example, that capital projects should be favoured where possible—this might not be appropriate in the case of the Charities Board—or that partnership funding arrangements are to be preferred.
Amendment No. 45 specifically extends the scope of directions to the National Heritage Memorial Fund so that the NHMF must comply with them when applying money. This takes account of the fact that the NHMF has the power to apply money on its own behalf, to purchase objects or buildings of importance to the national heritage and to hold these for a transitional period.
Amendment No. 47 requires the Secretary of State to consult a distributing body before giving any direction to it. This is to ensure that directions cannot be made which are unworkable or without the views of the body concerned being taken into consideration and it reflects the undertaking that I gave to the Standing Committee.
In amendment No. 47 we accept the principle behind the first part of amendment No. 22. It is desirable that the issuing of directions should be informed by the experience and opinions of the distributors. I cannot, however, accept the second part of amendment No. 22 because the Secretary of State may not refuse to account for decisions taken in the fulfilment of his duties. But to require the reasons for every decision to be published would place on the Department the duty to produce documents which, to a great extent, would not be of interest to anyone save the distributors themselves.
During the consultation process, before a direction is issued, the distributors will be made aware of the intentions behind each direction. If a direction appears to be based on unreasonable grounds, the Secretary of State can be asked by Parliament to account for his decision. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that amendment No. 22 is not necessary.
I cannot accept amendment No. 11. Our purpose in drafting subsection (2) was to ensure that the distributing bodies did not act in a way that might give rise to conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body which it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were all appointed by the distributor, or whose membership was conterminous with that of the distributor. It is vital that the Secretary of State should be able to make it clear that certain categories of potential beneficiary should not receive money. This power is exercisable only by order, so Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise and the Secretary of State could be required to account for decisions taken on the use of the power.
In drafting the clause we considered whether it might be possible to state this aim explicitly in the Bill, and amendment No. 10 attempts to do just that. However, there would be problems in reaching a statutory definition


of a controlling interest, particularly since we are likely to be dealing with public bodies which are not always constituted in similar ways. In addition, the inclusion of a statutory definition would remove any discretion on the part of the Secretary of State to take a reasonable view.
It is possible that a body might appear technically to be substantially controlled by the distributor, but the working arrangements might make a conflict of interest unlikely. The option suggested here would be to remove the Secretary of State's power entirely, and that we cannot accept. The subsection as drafted would make it possible for certain types of potential beneficiary to be ruled out, but at the same time to ensure that a decision to do so could be scrutinised. So I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that this mechanism is necessary and desirable and that they will agree to retain the subsection.

Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for the way he has responded to the concerns voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He understands them and has set out fairly to meet them.
As the Minister knows, both the Sports Council and the Arts Council have close working relationships with the Department of National Heritage, but they are their own people. They work closely with and consult officials in the Department, but in a hands-off way. I am quite sure that those officials would never try to lean on the Sports Council or Arts Council when those bodies came to distribute the grants allocated to them. The councils lead lives separate from that of the Department, although they sensibly get together with Department officials from time to time.
I invite the Minister to acknowledge that this is so—that the Government have no intention of disturbing the relationship. I hope that he will confirm that the councils' role as distributors is not to be altered. The Minister, I am sure, can easily give this undertaking; but he will understand that there is some nervousness about the future. We are all reluctant about and resistant to change, and especially suspicious of anything new. I am sure that the Minister can make a statement to allay these fears.

Mr. Alan Howarth: This is a very important group of amendments. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to redraft subsection (1) of clause 24 to make the powers contained in it less sweeping. He has been as good as his word, and I welcome the Government amendments, which limit the Secretary of State's powers in a reasonable way and require him to consult before making a direction.
My amendment, No. 22, contains, as the Minister observed, a requirement additional to the requirement that the Secretary of State would place on himself by means of Government amendment No. 47. He would be required not just to consult but to publish reasons when he makes directions. I believe it right that if the Secretary of State uses his power in an area where traditionally the Government have dealt at arm's length, he should explain what he has in mind.
I did not entirely follow the Minister's problem with the documents. No one is asking for immense numbers of documents to be published. We simply want some explanation of why the Secretary of State intended to use his power of direction in this sensitive area.
Subsection (2) will also give rise to some anxiety. In his letter of 3 March to members of the Committee, the Minister explained that it is intended to ensure that the distributing bodies do not act in a way that would lead to conflicts of interest. The provisions of subsection (2), however, give the Secretary of State a much broader power to restrict persons or classes or descriptions of persons who may not be funded by the distributing bodies. The subsection therefore needs re-examination.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 10 attempt to deal with the matter in such a way as to make the Bill reflect more precisely the intention behind subsection (2), as set out in the Minister's letter. I hope that the Minister will accept the purpose of the amendments, which is to address in a more precise way the matter about which he is concerned.
Amendment No. 10 places a clearly stated duty on the distributing bodies to ensure that no possible conflict of interest arises, or seems to arise, in their grant-making decisions. Amendment No. 11 seeks to remove the more general power of direction to exclude beneficiaries, a power that I cannot imagine the Government wishing to use.
Unless clause 24(2) is replaced or redrafted, it runs the risk of affording some future Secretary of State the opportunity to forget the intention behind the clause and to use it to restrict the payment of grant to organisations that are perceived to be at odds with Government policies. We rightly pride ourselves on being able to operate an effective arm's-length relationship between Government and the voluntary sector, as well as the arts, heritage and sport. I am certain that we should not do anything to undermine that proper liberal principle.
11.15 pm
In the Committee debate on the clause, the Minister emphasised that the power in subsection (2) could be invoked only by order. While that represents some safeguard against the power being used unreasonably. it does not provide the same watertight guarantee that would be provided by redrafting. The terminology of the amendment is taken from the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in which the question of local authority interests in companies is dealt with.
No doubt the amendment would technically need to be accompanied by other amendments to clarify aspects of its definitions and so on, but if my hon. Friend considers that the amendment is not the appropriate means of specifying his intention, perhaps he will undertake to look at the matter again with a view to tabling an amendment in the other place so that the matter may be made clear in the Bill.

Mr. Key: I thought that I had covered all but one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The exception was the detail in amendment No. 10, which I do not think is necessary.
We are satisfied that the intention of amendment No. 10 is correct, that bodies should not distribute money to bodies in which they have a controlling interest. We thought carefully about a number of wordings, any one of which was similar to the amendment. However, I regret that the amendment as drafted would not work. Defining a controlling interest would be impossible and would be open to many interpretations and challenges. We


concluded that the measure in clause 24(2) is the most practical approach. It might look draconian, but it is not intended to be.
I should like to read my hon. Friend's remarks to see whether I have failed to answer all his points. Perhaps he would also read what has been said, and we shall see whether we need to reconsider the matter.
I have no difficulty in giving the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) the reasonable assurance that he seeks. We have no intention of disturbing the relationship that we enjoy, and the arm's-length principle remains intact because it is a well-proven way forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 10, line 16, leave out from 'manner' to 'if' in line 17.—[Mr. Key.]

Clause 24

CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 10, leave out lines 26 to 32 and insert—
`(1) A body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State as to the matters to be taken into account in determining the persons to whom, the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which the body distributes any money under section 23(1).'.—[Mr. Key.]

Mr. Hinchliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 32, at end insert
except that in exercising their functions under section 21(2) above, the sports councils shall in no circumstances distribute money to any organisation which practices discrimination as between players in amateur and professional sport".
I appreciate that it is late and that hon. Members have had a long and hard day. However, the issues with which the amendment deals are serious, and some of us have been waiting a long time for a proper debate on them. People have been waiting since 1895. The amendment is an all-party attempt to address discrimination in sport. 'Were it to relate to women or people from ethnic minorities, such discrimination would be illegal.

Mr. Maxton: That is not correct, because private clubs and sporting organisations can and do discriminate against women in many ways, and are not breaking the law in doing so.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I did not expect an intervention before I had put the arguments in support of the amendment. It addresses specifically what is deemed amateurism within the regulations of the Rugby Football Union and concerns the relationship between that and rugby league players, not just professionals but amateurs. The vast majority of rugby league is played by amateurs, not professionals. The professional game is a small part of rugby league and it annoys many of us interested in the game to hear it described as a professional code.
Some hon. Members will recall a recent early-day motion, 1342, on some of the issues with which the amendment deals—in particular, the case of Steve Pilgrim, a rugby union player who until recently played for Wasps in London. He also played as an England B team rugby union international. He had the audacity to go for an unpaid amateur trial with Leeds rugby league football

club. As a consequence, he was automatically banned by the Rugby Football Union from playing rugby union football for two years.
The interesting point is that, if Mr. Pilgrim had gone to the Headingly rugby league ground in Leeds, but appeared on the other side of the main stand, on the Yorkshire cricket ground, for a professional trial for Yorkshire cricket, he would not have been banned. Had he gone to Elland Road, and been paid for playing for Leeds United, he would not have been banned. Had he been playing professional tennis, professional golf or even American football, he would not have been banned. Unfortunately, he played the game of rugby league.
He has not received a penny for playing rugby league, although he has had trials since then with the Halifax rugby league club. Neither club has signed him on, and he is now between the devil and the deep blue sea—not signed on by rugby league but banned from his previous sport. In the view of many decent, thinking people in sport as a whole, including many in the sport of rugby union, that is unacceptable in this day and age.
I mentioned 1895 because that was the year when what was then the northern rugby union split away from the rest on the issue of broken time payments. They are related to the fact that in the industrial north, and elsewhere, working-class people could not afford to miss time from work to play rugby union; therefore, young men were paid to cover the money that they could not earn in their normal course of employment because they were playing rugby. The ultimate result was the development of rugby league football.
Unfortunately, since 1895, some in the 15-a-side code have attempted, right up to the present day, to kill off the game of rugby league—both the amateur and the professional games. Many who have been involved in both rugby codes feel that that is unacceptable in this day and age. It is some measure of rugby league's strength and popularity that, despite all those attacks over nearly a century, the game continues to thrive and prosper, at both the amateur and professional levels. I shall be pleased to attend the nation's main sporting event on Saturday, to watch Widnes win the rugby league cup, along with the 75,000 other people who will pack Wembley to witness a great sporting occasion.
It is some measure of rugby's league greatness that, despite the obvious prejudice of the establishment, the media, the education system and the armed forces against the 13-a-side code, the professional sport of rugby league is second only to association football as the most popular spectator team sport in Britain. It would be encouraging if media coverage of rugby league reflected the fact that it draws crowds second only to those attracted to soccer. In terms of spectators, it is more popular than rugby union and cricket. The House has not considered the fact that rugby league is such a popular sport.
Amendment No. 1 attempts to address the discrimination against those who play rugby league football as amateurs of professionals that is still evident nearly 100 years after rugby league's break with rugby union.
Some years ago, when I played both league and union, I participated in a game of rugby union at a club in Otley, which is an area that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) knows well. When I entered the club house, I noticed a painting of the team that had won the Yorkshire rugby cup two years before the 1895 breakaway. A number of the faces had been blanked out. They were


players who had, after 1895, moved from northern rugby to play in the new northern union. They have never been forgiven. I want to see the day come, before too long, when the faces of those players are painted back into that picture, and an end to the nonsense of the past 100 years.
I speak with some passion because I, as an amateur league player, was banned from playing rugby union. Many of my friends and peers in Wakefield of a similar age still retain the letters that they received from local rugby union clubs saying that they were no longer welcome because, after the age of 18, they had played rugby league. We were considered sporting lepers. I will never forget that experience for as long as I live. Sadly, that attitude still prevails. Tonight, we hope to do something about making a long-overdue change to that period of history.
I pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who, some years ago, achieved—at least in theory—a free gangway between the code of amateur rugby league and rugby union. I say "in theory" because I could give example after example to show that, often, that free gangway does not exist in practice. I shall cite just one that came to my attention as joint secretary, with the hon. Member for Keighley, of the parliamentary rugby league group.
In Reading, an attempt was made to form the Unity rugby club, to play both rugby league and rugby union under the same banner. That is entirely reasonable. Plenty of clubs play cricket and rugby, or soccer and rugby. Why not rugby league and rugby union? Why should they not use the same facilities, pitches and equipment? It would be sensible. However, permission could not be obtained from Twickenham, simply because, they were told, they were playing rugby league. Had it been cricket, soccer, or any other sport, there would have been no problem. There are many examples of the rugby union establishment leaning on the game of rugby league.
11.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has had to leave the Chamber, but before he did so he drew my attention to correspondence that he had received about a rugby league tournament that is held at Swansea Uplands ground in Wales. Amateurs from both codes are involved in games there each year. Rugby union players received letters threatening them with action if they took part in an amateur tournament, where the trophy was presented by Jonathan Davies, who, it just so happens, has left the rugby union code and gone north.
There have been many examples of what can only be described as blatant discrimination in the armed forces against people who want to play the game of rugby league football. We met Lord Merlyn-Rees, a former Defence Minister, who headed the delegation. The prejudice with which we were confronted at that meeting had to be seen to be believed. We were told that the armed forces could not afford to fund the game of rugby league. We made the point that the same balls, jerseys, shorts, boots, socks and other items that rugby players wear are used in both codes, but we were told that, because of insufficient resources, rugby union, not rugby league, was played in the armed forces. It is high time that we did something about that prejudice.

Mr. Hargreaves: Many of my hon. Friends probably share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and what he has said

is enlightening. Those of us who served on the Committee probably missed out by not having this matter drawn to our attention earlier in the debate. However, at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, is this the right place to raise such an important issue concerning rugby? Ought it not to be the subject of a debate?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I should be only too happy to initiate such a debate. The reason for the amendment is that many of us feel that although the rugby union game receives substantial public funding, particularly from the Sports Aid Foundation, the Sports Council and the education system, it practises blatant discrimination against rugby league players. That is why we feel that the Bill is an appropriate mechanism to get rugby union to take account of the strength of feeling in the nation about the way that it treats rugby league players.
The rules relating to amateurs appear to apply only to people who are concerned with rugby league, not to rugby union, although those people are, to all intents and purposes, professionals. We know for a fact that rugby union players are paid and that they receive rewards often far in excess of what is payable in the rugby league game. In France—which is a party to the International Rugby Board's rules on amateurs, which forbid professionalism in rugby—entire rugby league teams have transferred to playing rugby union because they can get more money from playing rugby union. In New Zealand and Australia, payments are commonplace. Can anyone tell me that David Campese is an amateur? Does he go to Italy every winter to play for nothing? Of course he is a professional, and rightly so. He is an excellent rugby player, so why should he not be rewarded for his skills and for the fact that he, like many others, entertains vast numbers of people?
Payments are also commonplace in South Africa. Recently, my own team, Wakefield Trinity, was in the process of signing a Springbok rugby union player called Albertus Einslin. He pulled back from signing the deal because he had been offered £200 a match and a job playing "amateur" rugby union in South Africa. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that rugby union is an amateur code. Many of us are annoyed that the South African Rugby Union has attempted to stamp on the development of rugby league in the black townships on the basis that its amateur code there will lead to professionalism although, as everyone knows, the South African Rugby Union is semi-professional, if not wholly professional.
In this country, the Pugh report considered the British rugby union players who went on the so-called centenary tour of South Africa against the advice of the various home unions. The Pugh report, which has been suppressed, suggested that those players received about £30,000 each. Let us remember that that was in an "amateur" game.
"Week In Week Out", a BBC Wales programme, recorded a player—I seem to remember that he was an international player—saying that, to his knowledge, payments were made in Wales in the dressing room, in front of a Welsh rugby union official, an official from the union that banned Jonathan Davies from commenting for the BBC at Cardiff Arms Park because he had gone north to play for Widnes rugby league club. That is the union that continuies to ban Stuart Evans from returning to


playing rugby union in the valleys because he flirted with St. Helens' rugby league club but unfortunately did not have a very successful career in the 13 a side code.
We have in the House an hon. Member, who is not here tonight, whose main distinction in life was not arriving here some years ago but playing in my team, Wakefield Trinity. He told me one night that he had received far more money playing rugby union than playing for teams such as Wakefield Trinity.
The parliamentary rugby league group, which comprises about 70 members from this place and another place, has become rather impatient about this matter We contacted the International Rugby Board to ask it to explain what its rules on amateurism meant in this day and age. Last Wednesday, we met Mr. Dudley Wood, the secretary of the Rugby Football Union, and Mr. Bob Rogers, the chair of the English Rugby Football Union amateurism committee. On behalf of the parliamentary group, I must say that we were most grateful that they were prepared to meet us. They had a fairly hot reception.
The two gentlemen said that the problems which they conceded were occurring in certain unions—not the English union—were due to interpretation of amateurism, not the principle. They insisted that, although there were problems in Wales, France and here, there and everywhere, in England everything in the garden was fine. They said that there was no evidence of any payments to players in the English Rugby Football Union.
The most memorable part of our meeting was a comment from the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who told us of his experience of standing as the Conservative candidate in Wakefield against my predecessor's predecessor in the 1959 general election. Because of contacts with the local Conservative party—at that stage, the chair of Wakefield Trinity was a prominent member of the Conservative party—the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to kick off the Wakefield Trinity versus Hunslet league match.
I was present, and there was a crowd of about 15,000. The local Conservative parliamentary candidate was allowed to kick off, which would be a huge boost to anyone campaigning in an election in that area. The right hon. Gentleman kicked off, the incident was reported in the press, and he found that he had professionalised himself and was banned from playing rugby union. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—he is not an Opposition Member; no hard lefty he, but a former Minister and Government Chief Whip—is still banned by the rugby union. Thirty years of anger came out in the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday in Committee Room 14—and rightly so. That nonsense is still with us, and we are sad that such attitudes still prevail.
There have been one or two developments since last Wednesday's meeting; things have moved quite rapidly. First—I believe that it happened the day after we met the two gentlemen—in Edinburgh the International Rugby Board came to the decision that rugby league professionals who have never played union would be allowed to play rugby union within two years of making their desire to switch codes known, but union players who have turned to league are still banned from returning to union. That reads like a Monty Python script.
The news was picked up in The Independent yesterday, when Alan Watkins wrote about what nonsense it was:
Religious conversion is much in the air these days, with several Anglicans going over to the Church of Rome. If we

regard rugby league players as Anglicans, and union players as Catholics, it will be as if Anglicans can become Catholics and Catholics Anglicans. But Catholics who become Anglicans will not be allowed to revert to their original faith.
As Winston Churchill once said of his own early shifts of political loyalty between the Conservative and Liberal parties: anyone can rat once, but it takes a man of character to rat twice.
Alan Watkins makes the important point that the lack of equality between the codes means that
White Jonathan Davies",
who, of course, will play for Widnes at Wembley on Saturday,
cannot return to Llanelli, or Martin Offiah to Rosslyn Park, there is nothing to prevent Ellery Hanley, say, from signing on for the Harlequins as Peter Winterbottom's successor, playing a couple of seasons at the Stoop, and then returning to Leeds or some other Northern club to see out the autumn of his days.
What absolute nonsense—yet that is the present position.
Another development following the denials of Messrs. Wood and Rogers in Committee Room 14 last Wednesday is reported in The Times this morning. The main article on the sports page is headed:
RFU finds breaches of amateurism rife".
That means breaches of amateurism in the same English Rugby Football Union that we were told last Wednesday was totally amateur. We were told that amateurism was its members' sacrosanct principle, and the most important thing in their game. Yet according to the article in The Times, a report circulating in English Rugby Football Union clubs
has forced the RFU to confront a situation it denied existed to any serious extent. It reveals numerous illustrations of disregard for the amateur principles which officials at Twickenham insisted had more to do with imagination than reality.
A working party set up by the RFU to investigate growing allegations of financial benefits for amateur players has found the claims to be substantially true. Its report … says many examples of such payments have been received".
Is that not interesting? Yet at a meeting attended by many hon. Members who are in the Chamber now we were given clear assurances that everything in the garden was lovely in the English Rugby Football Union.
To put it mildly, there appears to be some inconsistency between the official position and reality. The official position is clearly in conflict with what we know and what the union, too, knows is happening. The worry is that the rules of amateurism as administered by the RFU apply only to those who have contact with the game of rugby league. It seems that anything is allowed to go on in rugby union.
I emphasise again the fact that many of us have no objection to rugby union players receiving payments. We have no wish to prevent funding from going to rugby union clubs. I have two—Sandal and Wakefield—in my constituency. I played discreetly for both teams many years ago as a rugby league player. I have friends who are involved in both clubs. They are two excellent rugby union clubs which are a credit to the game of rugby as a whole. I have no wish to see them deprived of funds that may accrue from the national lottery. However, the amendment would affect them only if the attitudes to rugby league continued. Through the amendment, we are saying, "For goodness sake, address the issues about which all of us here are concerned and back off. Let us have some common sense after 100 years."
11.45 pm
I am grateful to the House for tolerating a fairly lengthy contribution at this late hour. It is an important matter. The London-based media largely disregard rugby league. Many of us in the north are used to that. We can manage without them. From the point of view of the media, it is sad that they do not see the great sporting spectacle—some say the greatest sporting spectacle and I concur with that view—of rugby league football. What is more worrying is that the media fail to. cover the civil liberties questions raised by the issues I have described. They do not cover the way in which players are refused their basic civil rights by those who run rugby union.
I pay tribute to the rugby league press for the way in which it has pushed the matter. I pay tribute to the Rugby Leaguer newspaper, to Open Rugby magazine, which has had a continuing campaign for freedom in rugby, and to the League Express newspaper for its campaign on the issue.
I shall read from the editorial in this week's League Express because its comments put more succinctly than I can the feelings that many people have about the matter.
The editorial says:
If the Union actions did not impinge on League, they could go to hell in their own hand-cart, at their own pace, without any comment from us, but the Union's hypocrisy, dishonesty and blackmail—to give it an honest name—prevent many people who would like to try our game from doing so. The message goes out to schoolboys and adults alike, that playing rugby league can seriously damage your health and career prospects.
As we have endlessly pointed out, professional soccer players, golfers or cricketers, don't need special dispensations from Twickenham to play union. And league players, union players or players of any damn sport at all, should not need permission from Dudley Wood and his cohorts to take some exercise on a football field.
They have no moral, legal or any other right to pronounce on the sport of rugby league, or prevent free men and women playing whatever sport they like. No amount of window-dressing…will alter the fact that their game is continuing to use unjust and illegal discrimination against a sport they perceive as a competitor to their own.
There is great anger on the issue. I hope that the Government will grasp the nettle and end this nonsense once and for all.

Mr. Gary Waller: I strongly support and warmly commend the words of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Some people—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves)—may consider that the issue does not relate easily to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Wakefield explained, the rugby union is in receipt of substantial public funds through the Sports Council, so public policy issues arise which the Government cannot thrust to one side.
As an adherent of both rugby league and rugby union, like many other hon. Members, I do not seek to adjudicate between the qualities of the two codes. I congratulate Ilkley rugby union football club in my constituency on its achievement in gaining promotion this season. I also pay a warm public tribute to Keighley rugby league club, which had a magnificent season, winning the third division of the league and, equally importantly, attracting massive gates in the process. In the town and in the club there is enthusiasm to go on to greater things. Wigan and St. Helen's should watch out.
It is regrettable that the policy of disallowing a free gangway maintained by the International Rugby Board,

which, despite its title, has no responsibility at all for the league game, should still mar the reputation of rugby after so many years. The Rugby Football Union claims that it wants to protect its amateur status. That makes no sense whatever because everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that, in the top echelons, amateurism is an absolute sham. Many international rugby union players quite clearly have the benefit of a car and other benefits —including, perhaps, a job—simply because of who they are and because they are exceptionally good at the game they play.
As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, it cannot be right that a senior player like Steve Pilgrim should be banned from playing rugby union, possibly for life—certainly for a year from the time when he applies for reinstatement—just because he had a trial with a professional league club. That is a case about which Sir Peter Yarranton, chairman of the Sports Council and a past RFU present, has expressed concern.
The hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was banned from playing rugby union many years ago because, as a parliamentary candidate, he was invited to kick off a rugby league match. I am sure that that goes a long way towards explaining why my right hon. Friend has such strong feelings about the issue.
Some forms of the discrimination practised by the administrators of rugby union may eventually be tested in the courts, where a finding that they are illegal may bring the whole house of cards crashing down. That may apply in relation to differential treatment of former union players who have played rugby league. The payment of money and inducements to move from one union club to another, revealed in the newly circulated RFU report, to which the hon. Member for Wakefield also referred, also casts doubt on the possibility that the present situation can be maintained indefinitely. Not for nothing did an article in today's issue of The Times refer to a "malaise among administrators". One day soon, the little boy who pointed out that the king was not wearing any clothes will prove impossible to shut up.
Tennis, cricket and athletics eventually came to terms with professionalism and in no way was the amateur sport harmed—quite the reverse. In due course, rugby union will have to do the same. In the meantime, however, the Government should take a leading role in making it clear that discrimination—even if well-intentioned but misguided—is not acceptable in any sport.

Mr. John Maxton: As an ex-rugby union player, I find little with which to disagree in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Unlike him, however, I am not happy about the way in which rugby union is moving towards becoming a professional sport. As its rules—or, rather, its laws—stand at present, it is far too dangerous a game to be played for large sums of money. Unlike rugby league, rugby union has not adapted its rules to ensure that people are not in a position to injure other players and, if people were playing for large sums, it could be an extremely dangerous game. People could be seriously injured; there might even be deaths. I deplore that state of affairs. I repeat, however, that I find little with which to disagree in the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks.
If I have an objection, it is to the wording of the amendment. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that athletics has sorted out the problems of professionalism. That is not true. The so-called professional Powderhall sprints are held in Scotland every new year. The prize money is about £150 to £200. But someone who wins that race and accepts the £200 is barred for life from taking part in amateur athletics.
If the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) had run in any of those races, he would have been banned from taking part in any other race, yet we all know that, as a result of his prowess as a miler and a half-miler, he made enormous sums of money out of athletics. Not all sports have done away with that kind of discrimination, and athletics is one of them. As it is worded, the amendment would hit athletics as well as rugby union. That may be right.
The discrimination to which I have referred is not the only discrimination that occurs in sport. A very well-known golf club in my constituency is celebrating its centenary this year. It applied to Glasgow district council to ask whether it would hold a civic reception to celebrate its centenary. Quite rightly and very honourably the district council said that it was not prepared to give a civic reception to the Pollok golf club because the club would not allow women to become members.
That golf club actively discriminates, openly and blatantly, against women. However, it also discriminates much more subtly, without any openness, against Jews. There is racial discrimination in individual golf clubs and also in other sports. The House and the sports council will have to address that problem.
Bowls is another very popular sport in my constituency. However, in many bowling clubs, a woman can become a member only if she is the wife of a male member. She cannot join as a woman in her own right. There are other discriminations of which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is aware and they, too, should be addressed.
I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said. However, I am concerned that the amendment would cover a much wider range of sports than simply rugby union and rugby league. I hope that rugby union will finally come to its senses and find a better way of dealing with players who play the two codes.

Mr. McCartney: As chair of the all-party rugby league group, I support the amendment. I formed the group in February 1988. I had never played rugby league, although I had played in many positions in rugby union. As I grew older and slower, the positions seemed to change with regularity.
We formed the group to promote rugby league in an amateur and professional way, to try to build bridges between rugby union and rugby league and to use our activities in the House to develop links between the codes in the hope that they would assist to break down the prejudices that have existed for 98 years and continue to exist.
It took five years—until last Wednesday evening—for the English Rugby Football Union to agree to the first meeting. That meeting came about because of the publicity generated in the House over the discrimination against Steven Pilgrim. He has not been banned for one or two

years. As Dudley Wood pointed out in the meeting that I chaired last week in Committee Room 14, Steven Pilgrim has been banned for life from playing rugby union.
That ban does not just apply to playing; it applies also to coaching—whether of young children or adults. Steven Pilgrim's ability and right to play the game he loves has been taken from him by a group of elderly and out-of-touch gentlemen.
We did not simply call the meeting because of Steven Pilgrim. As a parliamentary group, we had amassed a growing dossier of evidence of the discrimination at an amateur level with respect to the attitudes towards playing rugby league. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to listen to this debate, because the Government, in relation to Ministers at the Ministry of Defence, have a case to answer. I do not make the point in a partisan way because Ministers at the MOD under the last Labour Government had the same case to answer.
Current Ministry of Defence policy is to try to ensure a complete blackout in the playing of amateur rugby league in the forces. The Ministry does that in two ways. First, rugby league is not allowed assistance from MOD sporting funds for development or insurance purposes, or to cover expenses in connection with playing the game. Secondly, when any attempt is made to organise rugby league—whether it is in the RAF, the Army or the Navy —senior officers take a number of steps to ensure either that the games do not take place, or that they can be quickly stamped out through the issuing of orders at specific stations.
12 midnight
The Ministry of Defence has been provided with the evidence on numerous occasions. We met the Minister of State and came to what we believed was an agreement on the development of the sport and its right to be treated in the same way as rugby union. Last week, in a meeting in Committee Room 14, we asked the Rugby Football Union to join us in agreeing a common approach to the right of armed forces personnel to play rugby league. Mr. Wood refused to participate and indicated clearly that the union, along with its colleagues in the MOD, would continue to oppose the introduction of the playing of rugby league in the armed forces.
Last year, the Government gave the Royal Navy alone some £35,000 in development funds for the full-time employment of rugby union coaches in the MOD. Resources have also been provided for the RAF and the Army. We are not opposed to that; we are saying that people who join the armed forces should be allowed to engage in the sport of their choice and should be given the time and opportunity to do so rather than being discriminated against.
We are concerned not only about the discrimination, but about the web of the deceit involved in sham amateurism. At the meeting, Mr. Wood and his colleague Bob Rogers were questioned in detail about the role of their organisation in relation to payments, or substitute payments, for playing rugby union. Mr. Wood made it absolutely clear that there was no evidence whatever of any payments, direct or indirect, for rugby union played in England under the direction of the Rugby Football Union.
We now know that that was a direct untruth. Not only did Mr. Wood mislead Committee members; when questioned, he deliberately did not inform us that Mr. Rogers—who was also present—had chaired the


investigation into the payments made to rugby union players. At the time when he told us that there was no proof whatever, the report was already on his desk awaiting his consideration. That report—commissioned by Mr. Wood and prepared by Mr. Rogers—is dealt with in great detail in The Times today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman; he has not once mentioned the national lottery, to which the amendment is supposed to relate. I do not think that it is in order to deal in depth with the pros and cons of evidence given to a parliamentary Committee. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who moved the amendment, related his speech firmly to the lottery; even that was stretching it, but I was prepared to be lenient in his case. I do not think that a repetition is necessary.

Mr. McCartney: I made it clear at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was speaking in support of amendment No. 1. The wording is quite clear—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The wording of the amendment is, indeed, quite clear. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was speaking to it; that was the last that we have heard of it so far.

Mr. McCartney: I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I feel that, in saying that this was an anti-discrimination amendment, I made it clear that I was trying to explain the reasons why an all-party group tabled the amendment and to give evidence. There is no point in tabling an amendment without being prepared to give detailed reasons for doing so. Some Conservative Members may, for whatever reason, find it uncomfortable to hear the evidence. But the evidence must be heard in support of the amendment.
The evidence that I have is not a repeat of that put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) or the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). It is the evidence of the Rugby Football Union. The evidence should be placed on the record in the debate because the RFU was given an opportunity by an all-party group in the House to put its views on the matter. In the confines of the House, it made it clear and set out in crystal clear terms that there was no evidence of sham amateurism. It said that there was no need, therefore, for an amendment such as amendment No. 1. It is for that reason that I wish to quote the evidence in the report that Mr. Wood has received, produced by his colleague Mr. Rogers, whom we interviewed on 21 April.
The evidence is contained in an article today in The Times, which is not known as a newspaper that supports the game of rugby league. The report was entitled "Inducements to move, incentives to stay and other illegal payments." It produced a "brief but not exhaustive" list of the evidence that it uncovered. The newspaper article said that payments to amateur players in England had arisen through the following:
excessive expenses, cars, … fictitious employment, cash-playing bonuses, clothing, fictitious expenses, housing-mortgage support, writing rugby articles, appearance money, overseas trips, luxury items, free or subsidised accommodation, car passenger expenses, fictitious appearances, sponsorship holidays, and family support.
If that list does not suggest a professional sport, I do not know what is. The list shows hypocrisy. I know of few

rugby league players even at the highest level of the game who are provided with such inducements to play their sport.
It is also interesting to note that when members of the Committee raised the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer he said that he could not investigate it or put it to the Inland Revenue because rugby union was an amateur sport and, therefore, payments did not exist. Perhaps the report of the debate should be passed on to the Treasury so that it can investigate what is known to go on but is not reported for tax purposes by the Rugby Football Union.
On bank holiday Monday, at Wigan central park, a race will take place between Martin Offiah, a former rugby union player and now a Great Britain international winger who plays for Wigan and hopefully will be man of the match at Wembley on Saturday, Andrew Harriman, the man of the tournament at the seven-a-side world championships at Murrayfield two or three weeks ago, and Rory Underwood, the current English international wing forward.
They will race to find out who is the fastest rugby player in Britain. Under the rules described by Mr. Wood, the players will not be playing rugby and, therefore, will not be banned. They will be in a rugby league ground running against a rugby league player, but because they will not be playing rugby league, it will be OK. They will turn a blind eye to it. Yet Mr. Steve Pilgrim, who played a trial match as an amateur on a rugby league ground has been banned for life from playing the sport in which he wishes to participate. It is a human rights issue and one which for far too long has been swept under the carpet in the House.
Through the Bill we want to put on notice the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the Scottish Rugby Union that unless they end discrimination no resources will be used from either the lottery or public funds to benefit those who, through discrimination, prevent others from playing the game of their choice.

Mr. Davidson: I wish to speak briefly to this amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thank hon. Members for their enthusiastic response.
I do not represent a constituency in which rugby league is played, but I was brought up in an area in which many rugby union players went on to play rugby league. It always struck me as extremely unfair that those players, when they reached the end of their league playing days, were not allowed to return to rugby union to put something back in the game as coaches or in any other capacity.
It is absurd to talk about the national lottery as a means of raising money for sport, when a certain sport refuses to allow former players to put something back, voluntarily, into their sport. Such behaviour should be subject to public policy. We should also question whether public money should be given to organisations that discriminate so blatantly against one group of citizens simply because they chose to play one sport rather than another.
I know that the Bill gives Ministers a number of reserve powers. They should tell us their intentions regarding those powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has expressed his reservations about some sports clubs that discriminate on the grounds of race and other hon. Members have alleged that clubs discriminate on the grounds of sex. That matter, too,


should be a matter of public policy. The Minister should make it clear that he wishes to have a level playing field so that all can benefit from the public moneys distributed through the lottery.
Hon. Members have done the country a service by bringing certain issues about rugby league into the open. I hope that the Minister will give a clear statement to the effect that discrimination will not be tolerated. I hope that we can look forward to swift action and pressure being exerted on the English Rugby Union in particular, as well on the other rugby unions and other sports that practise similar discrimination.

Mr. Pendry: I commend what my hon. Friends have done and I am pleased that, after some battle, their amendment was eventually selected for debate.
The late hour may be inconvenient to some, but that is tough. My hon. Friends have raised an important issue and it falls within the context of the Bill, because the Sports Council should not be allowed to distribute lottery money to a body that actively discriminates. The Minister for Sport cannot stand aside after hearing about that discrimination. He should agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), who thought that a full debate on the issue should be held in Government time. The Minister should institute that debate.
The Minister is the custodian of sport and he should call for an inquiry into the matter. The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and my other hon. Friends for raising the issue. I hope that the Minister's response will be constructive, and I am as anxious as my hon. Friends to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Key: It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that I see myself as the custodian of the Bill. I shall be unable to recommend to the House that the amendment should be accepted for reasons I shall cite. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), however, for drawing attention to such an extremely important issue.
We discussed the matter briefly in Committee, and I am aware of its importance to our clubs and those beyond our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) have also contributed to a debate in prime Government time—some might find that hard to believe, given the lateness of the hour—during the important Report stage of an extremely important Bill. The issue has been put firmly on the agenda, and I recognise its importance. I undertake to the hon. Member for Wakefield that I shall see whether I can do anything appropriate about it, although it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment.
I believe that this is best left to the determination of the distributing bodies subject, as regards this amendment, to directions laid down in the Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It would be quite inappropriate to make it an inflexible exclusion on the face of the Bill.
The policy pursued by a governing body in respect of excluding participation by professional players in its competitions is a matter for it to determine and not a

matter on which the Government should seek to dictate through access to lottery funds. Applications for lottery funds should surely be judged on their individual merits.
The sports councils are well aware of the policies of the governing bodies of sport in the United Kingdom. To rule out whole classes of body in statute on the ground that some hon. Members were unhappy with one of the policies of the governing body, whatever the merits either way, would prevent an individual club from ever being able to apply for lottery funds for worthwhile projects and projects which would extend the general sport provision in their communities, for example, for children at local schools. Surely these potential beneficiaries should not be punished because of their local rugby institution which belongs to the Union and not to the League.
12.15 am
The Government want to keep the arm's-length principle intact. It is tempting to be drawn into exploring suggestions that I can intervene in the governing bodies of sport to make them change their rules and laws, but I do not find that attractive. It is against the spirit of successive Governments of all political colours over many years. What matters is that there is a proper public debate of the issue, and the governing bodies of the sport perhaps need to have their heads knocked together.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for their contributions. I did not expect the defence to come from this side of the Chamber and was interested to find that it did. Nevertheless, I understand the points that he made, although I disagree with him. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) for raising the matter in Committee. We take the points that he has made about the situation, especially in Scotland.
I appreciate the Minister's response. I believe that he has taken close note of the comments made by those who have spoken tonight and that, privately, he shares many of the misgivings of hon. Members about the present situation.
I made it quite clear when I moved amendment No. 1 that there was no desire whatever to block funding to the Rugby Football Union, but the discrimination that has gone on now for nearly 100 years is unacceptable. I make it clear that there are hon. Members on both sides who are not prepared to tolerate this practice any longer.
I will in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment, having secured this important debate, but I make it clear that this matter may well be raised in another place by those who feel equally strongly about it. There are also moves in the European Parliament, where there is a well organised and successful rugby league group, to raise it at a European level. But I fear that what will happen to bring this matter to a head will be action taken by particular players through the courts, and that will be to me a matter of great regret. I hope that we can reach a common-sense resolution of the issue after this conflict of nearly 100 years.
Having made those points, and having expressed my gratitude to those who have stayed to take part in the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24

CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 10, line 34, leave out 'specified in section 21'.

No. 44, in page 10, line 35, leave out '23' and insert '23(1)'.

No. 45 in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
'() The Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund shall comply with any direction given to them by the Secretary of State as to the matters to be taken into account in determining the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which the Trustees apply any money under section 23(4).'.

No. 46, in page 10, line 36, leave out 'specified in section 21'.

No. 47, in page 10, line 45, at end insert—
'() The Secretary of State shall consult a body before giving any directions to it under this section.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 25

POWER TO AMEND SECTION 20

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 11, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert
'held in the Distribution Fund for distribution by a particular body to be held in the Distribution Fund for distribution by another body specified in section 21.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 26

POWER TO AMEND SECTION 21

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 11, line 45, leave out from 'held' to end of line 46 and insert
'in the Distribution Fund for distribution by a particular body to be held in the Distribution Fund for distribution by another body (being a body that on the coming into force of the order is specified in the subsection amended by the order);'.

No. 50, in page 12, line 2, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 51, in page 12, line 3, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 28

PAYMENTS FROM DISTRIBUTION FUND IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 12, line 24, leave out `has been allocated' and insert 'is held'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 29

INVESTMENT OF DISTRIBUTION FUND

Amendment made: No.53,in page 12, line 37, leave out from 'money' to end and insert
'in the Distribution Fund as is neither held under section 20(2) nor'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 29

INVESTMENT OF DISTRIBUTION FUND

Amendment made: No.54,in page 12, line 38, leave out 'or 28'.

No. 55, in page 12, line 41, leave out from 'Treasury' to end of line 43.

No. 56, in page 12, line 44, leave out from beginning to `be' in line 46 and insert—
'(2) The proceeds of any investment made under subsection (1) or this subsection may be re-invested by the National Debt Commissioners in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Treasury.
(2A) The proceeds of any investment made under subsection (1) or (2) shall, if they are not re-invested under subsection (2),'.

No. 57, in page 13, leave out lines 1 to 3.

No. 58, in page 13, line 4, leave out 'investment was made' and insert
'proceeds are attributable to the investment of sums paid under subsection (1)'.

No. 59, in page 13, line 5, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 60, in page 13, line 8, leave out 'investment was made' and insert
'proceeds are attributable to the investment of sums paid under subsection (1)'.

No. 61, in page 13, line 10, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.

No. 62, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—
`() In this section "proceeds", in relation to an investment, means any interest or dividends received in respect of the investment and any sums received on the realisation of the investment.
'() For the purposes of subsection (2A), the extent to which any proceeds are attributable to the investment of sums paid under subsection (1) out of money held for distribution by a particular body or held in the name of the Secretary of State shall be determined by, or in accordance with principles determined by, the Secretary of State.'.

No. 63, in page 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.—[Mr. Key.]

Clause 30

ACCOUNTS

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 13, line 16, leave out 'Accounts shall be prepared' and insert
`The Secretary of State shall prepare accounts'.

No. 65, in page 13, line 18 at end insert—
'(1A) The National Debt Commissioners shall prepare accounts in respect of any investments under section 29 in such form, and in such manner and at such times, as the Treasury may direct.'.

No. 66, in page 13, line 19, at beginning insert
'Each account prepared under subsection (1) or (1A) shall be sent to'.

No. 67, in page 13, line 19, after 'General' insert 'who'.

No. 68, in page 13, line 20, leave out 'each such account' and insert 'it'—[Mr. Key.]

Clause 34

ANNUAL REPORT

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 13, leave out lines 36 to 43.—[Mr. Key.]

Clause 40

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 15, line 34, leave out from `to' to 'means' in line 35 and insert 'a body'.

No. 71, in page 15, line 37, leave out from beginning to `is' in line 38 and insert 'body'.—[Mr. Key.]

Clause 42

REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES

Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 16, line 25, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£100,000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 97, in page 16, line 25, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£250,000'

Mr. Alton: I will not detain the House long, as we are all keen to make rapid progress.
In Committee the Minister said that he would consider the position of the society and local lotteries dealt with in part III of the Bill. I refer the House to line 25 of clause 42, where the figure of £50,000 appears. Many members of the Committee expressed their anxiety that the figure was too low, and should be increased. I therefore tabled an amendment suggesting £100,000.
Amendment No. 97, tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), suggests the even higher figure of £250,000. I understand that the Government are willing to consider that figure, as they undertook to give the matter further thought in Committee.
I am happy to be associated with the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and will therefore not press my own.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: In response to a debate instigated by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) I said in Committee that I would reflect on this. The House will be pleased to know that I have done that, and that I am happy to accept amendment No. 97—extending my regrets in the direction of Mossley Hill. I hope that the hon. Member will not be too disappointed.

Mr. Orme: It is not often that I get £250,000 from the Government. Some of us, including the lotteries council, met the Minister and discussed the matter with him. We made a strong case for raising the figure to £250,000, and the Government have seen the wisdom of that.

Mr. Alton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 97, in page 16, line 25, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£250,000'.—[Mr. Orme.]

Clause 43

REGISTRATION OF LOTTERY SCHEMES

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 17 [Clause 43], leave out lines 1 to 5, and insert—
'43.-(1) Section 5(3) of the 1976 Act (conditions that must be satisfied for a society's lottery not to be unlawful) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (b) (registration of a society with the Gaming Board), after "society" shall be inserted "or a connected company to that society".
(3) In paragraph (c) (promotion in accordance with approved scheme), after "society" shall be inserted 'or a connected company to that society".
(4) Paragraph (d)'(lottery scheme to be registered with the Gaming Board if the total value of tickets or chances to be sold in the lottery is more than £10,000) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall be omitted.'.
It is clearly established in charity and tax law that lottery promotion is a trading activity. Consequently, charities undertake lotteries through connected companies

controlled by them. Existing small lottery legislation, however, does not allow the Gaming Board to register the connected companies of charities to run lotteries. It allows only for the registration of the charities themselves. Charity, tax and small lottery law are thus incompatible, and the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to remedy that. We understand that Gaming Board practice until recently has been—sensibly—to register the connected companies of charities to run lotteries. In the past few weeks, however, some charity trading companies have had their registration requests refused.
We do not believe that it is deliberate Government policy to impose further tax liability on charities, but we should like clarification that the Government intend to amend the law. If charities are unable to run lotteries through their connected companies, and must pay tax on their small lottery proceeds, it will greatly reduce the value of small charitable lotteries and provide a further disincentive to charities to run lotteries, thus reducing their income.
As we have made clear, we are concerned about the impact that the national lottery could have on charitable income. Therefore, we welcome measures in part III which are aimed at securing charity income for small lotteries, although we think that the Government could go further. The amendment is compatible with the intention of part III. It is vital that the law be tidied up so that charities are not threatened with additional tax liability. We hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendement and will assure us that they will consider the matter and remedy the situation.

Mr. Alan Howarth: At this time of night, I shall say only on the substance of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman's arguments and their purpose are absolutely right. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not already discovered that there are insuperable technical difficulties, I hope that he will do his best to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to support the proposals. The arguments that we have considered in relation to the amendment reinforce my view on Second Reading that it would be sensible for the Gaming Board to regulate all lotteries.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: If I understand correctly, the purpose of the amendment is to enable a wholly owned trading company of a charity to promote lotteries on behalf of that charity. That is already possible, and I shall explain. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has been told by some of his contacts, the Gaming Board has not turned down requests for registration. It suspended consideration of applications for two or three weeks while the law was clarified. Under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, it is possible for wholly owned subsidiaries to be registered as charities and to conduct lotteries. There is no problem.

Mr. Pendry: I am happy to have that assurance. I am sure that what the Minister has said is absolutely correct. beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44

LOTTERY MANAGERS

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 17, line 16 leave out 'he' and insert `that person'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164 and 165.

Mr. Lloyd: Amendment Nos. 161, 162 and 165 fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to exempt a wholly owned subsidiary trading company of a society that manages a lottery on behalf of that society from a new certification regime for lottery managers.
Clause 44 is designed to bring under Gaming Board supervision what are known as external lottery managers. Those managers undertake the running of a lottery on behalf of a society in return for a management fee, which is often an agreed proportion of the lottery proceeds. It is important to provide for some control over the operations of external managers to ensure that the lotteries that they manage are properly and honestly conducted and to safeguard the interests of the societies or local authorities that employ them.
The same considerations do not apply to a wholly owned subsidiary of a society. Such subsidiaries cannot be described as external lottery managers in the sense that they act independently of the society, and we therefore think it is right to exempt them from the requirement to obtain a Gaming Board certificate.
Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 are technical. Proposed new section 9A(2) to the 1976 Act is drafted on the basis that a society must always be an unincorporated body. In fact, a society may be either an incorporated or unincorporated body, and the amendments alter section 9A(2) to reflect that position.

Mr. Orme: Does the amendment deal with donated expenses?

Mr. Lloyd: No, it does not deal with donated expenses. That is relevant to a later group of amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 162, in page 17, line 21, at end insert—
`(ba) in the case of a society's lottery, a company that is wholly owned by the society,'.

No. 163, in page 17, line 27, leave out 'a society or other' and insert 'an'.

No. 164, in page 17, line 28, leave out 'society or other'.

No. 165, in page 17, line 29, at end insert—
`() For the purposes of subsection (1)(ba) above—

(a) "company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 or a company to which the provisions of that Act apply as they apply to a company so formed and registered, and
(b) a company is wholly owned by a society if the society is entitled (whether directly or through one or more nominees) to exercise, or control the exercise of, the whole of the voting power at any general meeting of the company.'.—Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 45

FREQUENCY OF LOTTERIES

Amendment made: No. 166, in page 17, leave out lines 36 to 39.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 46

RULES FOR LOTTERIES

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 18, line 10, leave out '10 per cent.' and insert '20 per cent.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 12, in page 18, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
'(6) The total value of the tickets or chances sold in any one such lottery shall not exceed one quarter of the total value of tickets or chances which may be sold in all such lotteries held in any one year and promoted on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority.'.
No. 4, in page 18, line 13, leave out '£500,000' and insert '£1 million.'.

Mr. Pendry: The purpose of the amendment is to allow societies to offer larger, more attractive top prizes. That should assist small lotteries to survive the competition from the national lottery. Research suggests that the lottery could have dramatic effect on charitable income from small lotteries, as has already been pointed out. Charities in Ireland experienced a 60 per cent. drop in their small lottery income since the creation of the state lottery in 1987 and, according to that oft-quoted Guardian-GAH group report, the drop in small lottery income in the United Kingdom as a result of the national lottery could be as great as 50 per cent.
As we know, the Government introduced amendments to the Bill in Committee which increased the limit of the size of the single lottery from £250,000 to £500,000 and changed the maximum prize limit from £25,000 to 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales, whichever is the greater. While those changes were welcome, as was said in Committee, many charities are still doubtful about whether they will be sufficient to maintain charitable incomes for small lotteries.
The Opposition believe that the Government should do more to ensure that charitable lotteries are strong enough to survive the competition from big prize national lotteries. I am sure that every hon. Member has heard it argued that the size of the top prize in the national lottery will be the crucial factor determining sales. Surely the same argument holds for the smaller lotteries run by charities, sports clubs and community groups. We believe that the maximum top prize in a society lottery should be increased from £25,000 or 10 per cent. to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of the potential ticket sales. As the Bill is drafted, that would mean a top prize of £50,000 in a society lottery.
We also support the amendment proposing that the size of a single lottery should be increase to £1·25 million. The amendment would enable charities and other societies to reach the £5 million turnover proposed in the Bill by running four rather than 10 lotteries. If the amendment were accepted, it would mean that charities would incur lower administrative costs in reaching the total turnover limit. More small lottery proceeds would be available for charity and community use.
In debate on both the issue of single lottery size and the maximum prize level, the Minister said that the Government were not prepared to allow small lotteries that would compete with, and poach sales from. the national lottery. However, a charity lottery with a turnover of £1·25 million and 20 per cent. maximum size could hardly be thought to compete with a national lottery with jackpots that could reach, with the roll-over of three games, something like £44 million at one estimate.
The purpose of the. amendment is to make charitable and other society lotteries more attractive and more likely to survive and prosper, given competition from a heavily promoted multi-million pound prize lottery. We hope that the Government will be prepared to consider again both the limit and the size of the single lottery, and the maximum prize in any society lottery.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In deference to the lateness of the hour, I shall be as brief as I can. The House will be relieved to know that this is the last time that I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want to speak to amendment No. 12, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). My amendment is an alternative means of achieving essentially the same objective.
I appreciate that the Government have already amended clause 46, and the movement that they have allowed is welcome. The annual limit of £5 million is fair and sensible and I welcome the spirit of the amendment that the Government have already made. However, there seems to be a basic inconsistency in Government thinking on the issue. The Bill allows a society to run lotteries with proceeds of up to £5 million per annum, but limits the size of each lottery to make it impossible, in practical terms, to reach the new limit, because each society would have to run at least 10 lotteries a year.
My hon. Friend the Minister said on a previous occasion that some societies do run instant lotteries 10 times a year. That is possible in the case of draw-type lotteries, which are suitable for football and supporters' clubs that meet regularly—but it is not realistic for national charities whose members and supporters are widely dispersed throughout the country. In practical terms, it is impossible for them to run more than four or five modern, instant lotteries a year on a national scale.
A period of 12 to 15 weeks is needed for each game to be produced, distributed, sold and recovered. Tickets and posters must be designed and distributed to thousands of retail outlets, a publicity campaign organised, tickets sold, and money gathered in. The draw must then be held, and perhaps an event organised in that connection.
Ten weeks is the very least in which that cycle of activity can be completed. I prefer my amendment to amendment No. 4 because it would still require societies to run instant draws every 10 weeks and that is too frequent. More time should be allowed. I note that the Government do not intend to restrict the national lottery's own instant lotteries in the same way.
My hon. Friend the Minister also suggested that societies and charities could run concurrent lotteries, but that is not an attractive solution. It would require a double set of printing, posters, administration, accounting and advertising. That would be expensive and confusing for charities and for the Gaming Board. Also, I am advised

that it would contravene the current regulations governing lotteries and would require the amendment of section 10 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. It seems illogical to allow two lotteries of £500,000 and not one of £1 million.
Charities depend on the efforts of their voluntary workers and everyone wants them to keep their administrative costs down. It is not realistic on either count to ask charities to organise 10 lotteries a year or to run two or three concurrently.
Amendment No. 12 would raise the limit on the turnover for any individual lottery to £1·25 million, with a corresponding top prize limit of £125,000. My hon. Friend the Minister warned of the danger of creating mini national lotteries, but it should be borne in mind that a charity lottery would be able to offer a prize of that size only four or five times a year, at most. A prize of £125,000 would not compete in any real way with the national lottery's weekly prize of millions, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested.
Many charities want to continue to raise their own funds rather than rely on the national lottery. It seems unfair to restrict their initiative, particularly if the Government give them a total annual limit of £5 million which it is impossible to realise in practice. Charities should be allowed to run their lotteries on a cost-effective basis and to offer attractive prizes.
My hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the arrangements can be altered by statutory instrument, but it is important not to start off on the wrong footing. I fear that charity lotteries would wither on the basis that my hon. Friend proposes. A prize of £500,000 only would be perceived by the public as just too unattractive compared with national lottery prizes. Irremediable damage would be done before the regulations were altered and charity lotteries would be virtually destroyed—as in Ireland, where, as was mentioned earlier, small charity lottery income has collapsed 60 per cent. If that were replicated in Britain, charity income from small lotteries would fall from the present level of £240 million to less than £100 million, which would be most serious. I ask my hon. Friend to address that point.

Lady Olga Maitland: I support amendment No. 12, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). It reflects my concern about how small charities and voluntary organisations that run their own lotteries can survive the anticipated enormous success of the national lottery. Scratch card lottery tickets are sold by 200 charities and bring in art estimated income of about £40 million a year. They are unlikely to be able to raise similar sums of money if the Bill as it stands becomes law.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the amendment, particularly bearing in mind that the Government will be able to be generous after the undoubted success of the national lottery. I ask the Government to support what I call the little fella, the smaller charities, and allow them to raise the full sum to which they are entitled. The means for doing so has not been provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Alton: I wish to associate amendment No. 4—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—with amendment No. 12, spoken to by the hon. Member for


Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and amendment No. 196, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). If any one of the amendments were accepted, the Bill would be improved and would go some way towards meeting the concerns which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland) raised this evening, but which she more appropriately raised in Committee, where she explored the issues raised in these amendments rather than scratch cards, with which we dealt earlier this evening.
The amount of money that can be given in lottery prizes by charities, voluntary organisations, football clubs and others is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who has been here for most of today's debate, has made representations to me about the football clubs in her constituency. Recently, I met Liverpool football club representatives, and I know that many other voluntary organisations and charities are anxious about the amount of prize money that they will be able to give. Their concern is that, if they are competing with a lottery that is handing out huge sums of money, they will look like very poor relations.
The arguments have been well put. Whichever of the amendments the Minister could find it in his heart to accept would improve the Bill. Even if he is unable to accept any of them tonight, I hope that he will continue to bend his mind to the issue and accept an amendment in the other place.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As is clear from all the speeches, these amendments seek to increase still further the limit on the proceeds and prizes from a single lottery. We amended the Bill in Committee to increase the limit on proceeds from £250,000 to £500,000 and the limit on prizes from £25,000 to the greater of £25,000 or 10 per cent. of the proceeds.
Amendment No. 4, spoken to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), seeks to double the proceeds limit to £1 million. Amendment No. 12, spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), is even more ambitious, for it would provide, in effect, a limit of £1·25 million. Amendment No. 196, moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), would double the prize limit, so that the promoter of a £1·25 million lottery could offer a top prize of £250,000.
It is a matter of judgment as to where the line between small and medium-sized lotteries, as provided for in the 1976 Act and the national lottery, is drawn. The Government's view, however, is that lotteries of the scale envisaged by the amendments overstep sensible bounds. We have drawn the line at £500,000 for proceeds and £50,000 for prizes. I accept that it is possible for others to take a different view, but what I do not accept is that the levels that we have provided for put small lotteries at risk. Although I know that some of the lotteries that describe themselves as small would like higher limits, most are pleased about the changes that we have incorporated in the Bill.
It is beyond doubt that the Government's new limits represent a substantial increase on those currently in operation—£180,000 for proceeds and £12,000 for prizes. They will greatly enhance the appeal of such lotteries.
I return now to what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, having experienced such debates many times before.
It would be sensible at the very least for societies to become accustomed to the new limits before we contemplate further increases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, we can keep all the limits under review and we shall do so. If further changes appear desirable in the future, they may be made by statutory instrument. We would not need primary legislation.
I advise the House to accept the substantial increases and to leave matters there for the present.

Mr. Pendry: I expected that reply from the Minister, and I am sure that other hon. Members also expected it. As long as the Minister is in charge, I am happy that he will consider the issue sympathetically. I know that he will not be in his post for too long because we shall be on that side of the House. However, as long as he is in charge, I am sure that he will keep the matter in mind. With those serious remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 18, line 28, at end insert—
'(5A) In subsection (11) (not more than half of a lottery's proceeds may be appropriated for the provision of prizes) for "one half" there shall be substituted "50 per cent.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 168, 169, 172 and 191.

Mr. Lloyd: Government amendment No. 169 is the cornerstone of this group of amendments. It would enable the Secretary of State to vary the percentages specified in section 11 of the 1976 Act. The other four amendments make consequential drafting charges.
We have received many representations from football clubs, rugby clubs and others—probably even from rugby league clubs—about lottery expenses. At present, the 1976 Act provides that no more than 25 per cent. of the proceeds of a lottery may be appropriated on account of expenses. This will be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). It has been argued that that limit is unreasonably low. Although many promoters of society lotteries are able to operate comfortably within the 25 per cent. limit, we accept that many others—especially those promoting smaller lotteries—find it difficult to do so. In response to representations, we amended the Bill in Committee to raise the expense limit to 30 per cent.
The Lotteries Council, of which the right hon. Member for Salford, East is president, suggested that even that higher figure is insufficient, and the council has argued for a 35 per cent. limit. I am not convinced that a limit above 30 per cent. is necessary or desirable as it would whittle away the amount of a lottery's proceeds which went to good causes. I now repeat what I have said when speaking to a number of other amendments because we are moving into uncharted territory. We believe that it would be sensible to be in a position to alter the 30 per cent. limit without recourse to primary legislation if there was a strong case for a further increase in future.
The amendment would also make it possible to vary by order the percentage limit on the size of the top prize in a lottery and on the amount of the proceeds of a lottery which may be used for the provision of prizes. I stress that


we have no plans at present to vary any of the percentages, but the amendment would ensure that we could act reasonably quickly if circumstances changed or if experience suggested that we had not judged one of the limits correctly.
The changes do not mean that we have got it wrong. Experience may suggest that the limits should be altered, and I think that all hon. Members want us to get it right as soon as possible, so it is sensible to have powers available so that we can move by regulation instead of having to find time for primary legislation, which it is often difficult to do.

Mr. Orme: The issue of donated expenses still remains a problem for small organisations. Many such organisations share offices with their lottery companies, and often have overlapping duties, making it difficult for them to determine exactly what constitutes a beneficiary donating expense. That point has been made to me and to many hon. Members by small organisations that fear that the provision could be their Achilles heel.
The Minister has already said that he is prepared to consider the matter again. Will he have one more look at it before the measure goes to the Lords, where it may be discussed further? I have other representations to put to him, and all I ask is that he keeps an open mind for the moment.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: It may be helpful if I say a couple of sentences in response. I do not expect to change the rules because I think that they are adequate and will not be onerous. Expenses incurred solely or primarily to enable the lottery to function, such as the costs of printing tickets and of advertising, must, of course, be counted as the expenses of the lottery, but the definition will not include the use of office space belonging to the club or society if it has not been acquired especially to house the lottery team. That is the kind of principle on which the Gaming Board will work.
I understand, however, that there is considerable worry about the exact side of the balance sheet on which certain expenses will appear, so I have asked the Gaming Board to give societies guidance so that they will know what position they will be in before they make the decisions that might bring them one side, rather than the other, of the 30 per cent. limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48

POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO VARY MONETARY LIMITS AND TO PRESCRIBE OR VARY FEES

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 19, line 24, leave out 'monetary limit' and insert 'sum specified'.

No. 169, in page 19, leave out line 25 and insert—
`(3) For subsection (1)(b) there shall be substituted—
(b) vary any sum or percentage specified in section 11 above;".'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 19, line 26, after 'for"' insert 'under'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 171.

Mr. Lloyd: The amendments ensure that smaller lotteries, probably those that operate a series of single

lotteries with a turnover of less than £10,000, that are registered with the Gaming Board may pay an annual fee rather than a fee per lottery, as happens now. That will help to keep down the size of the total fees that they pay. I hope that, in conjunction with my acceptance of amendment No. 97, the amendments will meet with the approval of those who have the interests of small lotteries at heart, because it will improve the position of the organisations that run them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 171, in page 19, line 27, after `substituted"' insert `, or provide that no fees are payable, under'.

No. 172, in page 19, line 31, leave out 'monetary limit' and insert 'sum specified'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Clause 50

REMOVAL OF PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF PREMISES FOR THE DELIVERY OF FOOTBALL POOLS COUPONS AND STAKES

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 20, line 32, leave out from first 'competition' to end of line 36 and insert
`, in relation to a registered pool promoter, means a competition which is of the same kind as or is broadly similar to a competition held by him before the passing of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174.

Mr. Pendry: It would be churlish of me not to recognise that the Government have come a long way in accommodating the concerns about the sale of pools coupons in shops. Although we fully support the spirit of clause 50 as amended in Committee, we have several concerns about its definition of a qualifying competition, especially the definition in new subsection (4D) (a) of section 1 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963:
a competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games played on a Saturday".
We realise that the Government's new amendments Nos. 173 and 174 make that definition a little broader, so that instead of being limited to football matches played on a Saturday, it will include games played on Sundays and bank holidays. That is a good step forward, but in our view it does not go far enough. Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 do not solve the problem of pools competitions based on events other than football matches, such as major horse races and cricket matches, which now commonly appear on coupons.
It is important that the pools companies are permitted to run their businesses as efficiently as possible, with the minimum of bureaucratic restraints and obstacles. I am sure that the Government would tell us that that is in line with Government policy. It is absurd, therefore, that the companies will be allowed to sell in shops only coupons that use only football matches, whereas on coupons that are sold door-to-door, they will be allowed to use a number of different sports. The ludicrous position would be created whereby the pools companies were forced to issue two types of coupon. The first would be for sale in shops and would relate only to football matches and the second would cover the rest of their business.
My hon. Friends and I can see no reason why the Government would wish to introduce such a petty and


needless restriction. It is already established practice to run pools competitions on sporting events other than football. The Minister surely cannot argue that the use of other sports on coupons from shops would be socially damaging or would lead to unnecessary stimulation in gambling. Perhaps he could enlighten us about the reasoning behind this curious measure.
The amendment is a simple method by which to maintain the status quo and to avoid all the problems implied by the needlessly restrictive new subsection (4D). It uses wording similar to that contained in the British Telecommunications Act 1981 when it was necessary to ensure the legality of the collection service in the context of the Post Office letters monopoly. I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board and that he will give me a constructive reply.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) raised several points. The speediest way in which I can deal with them is, before responding to the amendment, to say something about Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174 which deal with several of the points he raised. The Government amendments make modest changes to the definition of a qualifying competition in clause 50. Clause 50, which was added to the Bill in the Committee, allows pools coupons and stakes to be collected in retail outlets. The clause is carefully drafted to confine the concession to the present weekly, long-odds football pools competition. The definition of a "qualifying competition" seeks to encapsulate the key features of such competitions.
The reason for restricting the concession is simple. It is to preserve the existing framework whereby only socially harmless forms of low-stake, long-odds gambling, such as the football pools and lotteries, are available in ordinary retail outlets while harder forms of gambling continue to be confined to dedicated, licensed premises, such as betting offices, where they can be better supervised.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) pointed out that the definition of a qualifying competition would cause pools companies one or two difficulties. The definition refers to a
competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games played on a Saturday".
It was put to us that the pools companies were finding it increasingly difficult to obtain 58 first-class fixtures played on a Saturday and were having to resort to using minor league matches. We are told that including such matches on the pools coupon has a depressing effect on turnover. A further difficulty with the definition is that it would prevent coupons from being collected in shops during the Christmas week when the matches contained on the coupons were, in years where Christmas fell on a Saturday, played on a bank holiday Monday or Tuesday.
A final problem arises in relation to the reference to games played. It is not uncommon for matches to be postponed, perhaps because of bad weather—a point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde—and for the results to be determined by the pools panel. I accept those points and would accommodate the first two by including football games played on a Sunday or bank holiday and the third by referring to games to be played.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Erdington raised a more fundamental objection to the definition of a qualifying competition. With the amendment, the hon.

Member for Stalybridge and Hyde returns to the fray on the issue. Occasionally the pools companies run competitions on other sports. The Littlewoods coupons for 3 April included a pools competition on the Grand National. I do not know whether there was a box for the false starts. I understand that Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters also run occasional pools on other horse races, and on cricket and snooker matches.
The entry form for those other pools competitions is printed on the reverse side of the weekly football pools coupon. Under the provisions of clause 50, such coupons could not be collected in retail outlets. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde argues that that would be unreasonable. Although superficially I can see why he says that, I do not agree with him. The retail outlet concession is deliberately confined to football pools because of their special character. To allow pool betting on other sports to take place in newsagents and other shops could potentially turn them into unlicensed unregulated betting offices. A whole range of other pool competitions could be brought in by a whole range of other promoters. Some hon. Members may be very relaxed about that, but I believe that many others remain to be persuaded that the system of dedicated licensed premises for betting has had its day.
1 am
Our debate in Committee has affected the proposal made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who has sought to narrow the effect of the measure. I see exactly what he seeks to do, and if I could find a way of achieving his objective, I would be tempted to do so. I fear, however, that in attempting to solve one problem, he has created another in its place—as I think one always must if one seeks to draft a narrow amendment in this area.
Although the amendment would allow Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters to market their existing cricket, snooker and horse-racing competitions, which form a small part of their activities, it would also create a closed market. Anyone setting up as a pool promoter following the enactment of the Bill would not benefit from clause 50 and so could not engage shops to collect his pools coupons.
I have no doubt that the existing pools companies would welcome such statutory protection from competition, and the Opposition may feel comfortable putting their names to such an amendment, but it is too anti-competition and too weighted against any newcomer for the Government to be able to commend it to the House. I hope that the House will not adopt the

Mr. George Howarth: The Minister appears to accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) sought to make on behalf of the pools companies about this narrow aspect of business, in respect of which forms are often included on the reverse side of existing coupons.
The Minister may be right to say that the amendment has a wider compass than my hon. Friend intended. But the hon. Gentleman said that if he thought that he could achieve the original intention of the amendment, he would be willing to do so. Would he be willing, before the Bill goes to the other place, to look again to see whether he can draft a provision that would achieve what my hon. Friend suggested, rather than having the wider implications which he says the amendment has?

Mr. Lloyd: I have examined the matter carefully since the Committee stage. I do not think that it is possible to amend the Bill in this way without opening up the possibility of large-scale pool betting on all sorts of activities from all sorts of promoters in unlicensed outlets. I shall certainly think again, and if the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) can come up with a foolproof form of words, I shall be interested to see it and shall think seriously about suggesting to my colleagues that it should be introduced in the other place.

Mr. Pendry: Let me reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North has said. We have heard a lot about the fact that there will be a year to think things through. I shall not go as far as my hon. Friend in suggesting that something could be done before the Bill goes to the other place, but perhaps during that year a few heads could be knocked together so that words that would be acceptable to the Government can be formulated. With those words of wisdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 173, in page 20, line 34, after `games' insert `to be'.

No. 174, in Page 20, line 34, after `Saturday' insert
', a Sunday or a day that is a bank holiday in England and Wales or in Scotland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971'.—[Mr. Key.]

Schedule 1

LEGALITY ETC. OF LOTTERIES FORMING PART OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY

Amendment made: No. 72, in page 23, leave out lines 22 to 26.—[Mr. Key.]

Schedule 4

AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 1980

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
'"(2ZA) Notwithstanding that an object such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above or a collection or group of objects such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above is not itself of importance to the national heritage, the Trustees may make a grant or loan under subsection (1) above for the purpose of assisting in its acquisition if—

(a) they are satisfied that after its acquisition it will form part of a collection or group of objects such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, and
(b) after obtaining such expert advice as appears to them to be appropriate, they are of opinion that that collection or group is of importance to the national heritage.'.

No. 106, in page 27, line 43, at end insert—
'(g) to preserve or maintain any building or land in respect of which a grant has been or is to be made under any of paragraphs (a) to (f) above.'.

No. 107, in page 28, line 2, leave out from beginning to `unless' in line 3.

No. 108, in page 28, line 6, after `subsection,' insert
'or a grant under paragraph (g) of that subsection where a grant under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) has been or is to be made,'.

No. 109, in page 28, line 10, after 'subsection,' insert
'or a grant under paragraph (g) of that subsection where a grant under paragraph (d), (e) or (f) has been or is to be made,'.

No. 110, in page 28, line 14, leave out 'under subsection (2A) (a), (b) or (c)' and insert
'such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (a)'.

No. 111, in page 28, line 15, leave out `under subsection (2A) (d), (e) or (f)' and insert
'such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (b)'.

No. 112, in page 28, line 18, leave out `under subsection (2A), (a), (b) or (c)' and insert
`such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (a)'.

No. 113, in page 28, line 19, leave out `under subsection (2A) (d), (e) or (f)' and insert
'such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (b)'.

No. 74, in page 28, line 31, at end insert—
', In section 4(2) (application of section 3(2) and (3) in relation to other expenditure out of National Heritage Memorial Fund) after "(2)" there shall be inserted ", (2ZA)".—[Mr. Key.]

Schedule 5

THE NATIONAL LOTTERY CHARITIES BOARD

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendement No. 114, in page 29, line 22, after `chairman' insert
`and the chairman of any committee of theirs'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 115 to 117.

Mr. Lloyd: In Committee I undertook to consider whether it should be possible for the chairmem of the board's committees to be paid. Having considered the matter, we believe that that should be a possibility, and the amendments make that so.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 29, line 27, after first `Board' insert
`or chairman of a committee of the Charities Board'.

No. 116, in page 29, line 34, after first `Board' insert 'or of a committee of the Charities Board.'

No. 117, in page 31, line 14, at end insert
'and any chairman of a committee of that Board.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 6

THE MILLENNIUM COMMISSION

Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 31, line 28, at end insert
'and—

(c) one shall be nominated after consultation with the leaders of the minority parties other than Her Majesty's Opposition.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 31, line 37, after `Opposition', insert
'or of any other minority party.'.

Mr. Alton: These two amendments were moved in Committee. The Minister will recall that we were unable to have a Division on the issue of the representation of minority parties in the House on the Millennium Commission.
Despite discussions that have been held in the intermim with Ministers and the Secretary of State, I understand that it has been impossible to make any progress on the question of representation and I give notice that, if we are unable to extract anything from the Minister when he replies as to whether the issue will receive further consideration, I intend to press the amendment to a Division as we were unable to have a Division in Committee.
I am grateful to the official Opposition and to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who, in contrast, has been extremely helpful on the matter and who was good enough to say earlier that the official Opposition support the principle that the minority parties in the House should be represented on the Millennium Commission.
About 20 per cent. of the funds raised by the national lottery will be dispensed by the Millennium Commission. If there is to be political representation—whether there should be political representation at all is open to question and is a matter that the House may wish to consider—and given that the Government have decided to write on to the face of the Bill the fact that two Ministers and one representative of the official Opposition will be appointed to serve on the commission, it seems extraordinary that no representatives of the 43 Members of the House who serve in seven minority parties should be members of that commission.
There are plenty of examples of the minority parties taking collective decisions—for example, through the Committee of Selection. I recall that when I was my party's Chief Whip, on many occasions, I made joint nominations on behalf of the minority parties to serve on Committees in the House. The principle should be no different in respect of the amendment.
There are nine places available on the commission. I cannot understand why the Government decided to take two places and to give one to the official Opposition and none to the minority parties.
The geographical composition is also worth considering for a moment. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that among the signatories to the amendment are spokesmen for the Democratic Unionist party and the Official Unionist party in Northern Ireland and the Social Democratic and Labour party of Northern Ireland.
Neither the official Opposition nor the Government are represented in Northern Ireland, and it would be scandalous if no one from Ulster were represented on the Millennium Commission. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will promise Northern Ireland Members that one of the nine places will be allotted to someone from Northern Ireland.
The amendment is supported not only by representatives of the three Northern Ireland parties that I have mentioned, but by members of the Scottish National and Welsh National parties. I think that the breadth of opinion represented should in itself commend the amendment to the House. If there is to be a separate fund with its separate bureaucracy—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about that earlier—and if it is to have political representatives, surely minority parties should be represented. It is an elementary question of fairness.
The Minister rightly took great pains to point out that there was an extraordinary atmosphere of good will in Committee, although many of us held diametrically opposed views on the issue of the lottery iself—often because of constituency, moral or ethical considerations. At the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Minister himself said that all parties had played a constructive and positive role.
The Committee stage was marked by a very non-adversarial quality: there was great co-operation and partnership between hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as they considered the best way in which to make the lottery work. Although many had deep reservations about whether it should be established at all, we did not allow ideological questions to prevent us from proceeding. Surely, hon. Members should adopt the same spirit when considering who should serve on the Millennium Commission.
Another issue should worry hon. Members. Inevitably, people will be concerned about the nature of the money that is being dispensed by the commission. I believe that those who will monitor the operation of the commission would feel far happier if they knew that it contained a breadth of opinion representing all parties in the House and every part of the United Kingdom. That would leave the commission open to far fewer suggestions that it is the result of a carve-up, or is being manipulated or cynically abused.
The Government should consider the amendments carefully, in the interests of fairness. If they do not feel able to accept them tonight, they should at least give us an assurance that they will consider them in another place, thereby avoiding the need for an otherwise necessary Division.

Mr. Key: When we established the Millennium Commission, we recognised that we were establishing a far-reaching and visionary body that would be of interest to the whole nation. We therefore thought that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition ought to be able to nominate one member of the Commission; we did not think that the right of nomination should be spread further. In Committee, we amended our proposals to reduce the number of our nominations to three; we considered that sensible. There is no doubt that politicians will be a minority on the commission.
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) should suggest that we have engaged in discussions or negotiations between the end of the Committee stage and tonight's debate. I have engaged in no discussions whatever. The hon. Gentleman's comments are, perhaps, predictable, but I cannot accept them. I shall oppose the amendments.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Rev. Ian Paisley.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) put his points very fairly. Let me point out to the Government that small parties are represented in the House. Do the Government feel that they should have the largest slice of the cake? Are they saying to the official Opposition, "You can have one representative; all the other, smaller parties should be forgotten"? I do not think that that bears out what the Government have continually told us about the objectives of the Bill.
The attention of the House has been drawn to the fact that the three small parties from Northern Ireland will not be represented. They do not always see eye to eye. We are always told that we should see eye to eye, but immediately we do, people want nothing to do with us.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage has read deeply in theology. He will know that the millennium is a


wonderful thing. It is 1,000 years of peace and prosperity and the reign of Christ. He will also know that before it there comes a great tribulation. It seems that he would like to throw the smaller parties into the great tribulation rather than bring them into the millennium.
If the Government cannot accede to what has been requested in the amendment, can they give an assurance that Northern Ireland will not go without representation?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Social Democratic and Labour party will get the seat.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is all right. It can get the seat. I am not interested in who gets the seat, but there should be some representation from Northern Ireland. This should not be a party political matter, it should be a matter for the House. The Government would not say to the Opposition that the representative cannot come from one wing of the Opposition, whether it be left, right or centre. That should not come into the matter. That is the way in which I look at this matter.
Everyone knows my views on the national lottery. I have made them clear in the House. But the Minister should give the Northern Ireland people at least some sort of recognition and representation.

Mr. Pendry: We sympathise with the arguments that have been made. I thought that it was discourteous of the Minister not to answer the point that was about to be made to him by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill on whether representations had been made since the Committee. It would have been helpful to the House if the Minister had given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make his case.
I wish to make two points. First, if this is a national lottery, it should be seen to be truly so. Representatives from the House should be on the commission and should be from as wide a spread of parties as possible. Secondly, many people would like to see Parliament get closer to the national lottery to provide accountability. Therefore, there is a lot to commend the amendment and we support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 27, Noes 128.

Division No. 252]
[1.17 am


AYES


Alton, David
McMaster, Gordon


Barnes, Harry
Mahon, Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Miller, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
O'Hara, Edward


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cryer, Bob
Pendry, Tom


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Salmond, Alex


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Hall, Mike
Tellers for the Ayues:


Hinchliffe, David
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Ms Liz Lynne.


Loyden, Eddie



Maclennan, Robert





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beresford, Sir Paul





Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Boswell, Tim
Legg, Barry


Brandreth, Gyles
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Lord, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Luff, Peter


Butler, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Maitland, Lady Olga


Carrington, Matthew
Malone, Gerald


Carttiss, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chapman, Sydney
Merchant, Piers


Clappison, James
Milligan, Stephen


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Congdon, David
Nelson, Anthony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Patnick, Irvine


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Richards, Rod


Duncan, Alan
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Elletson, Harold
Shaw, David (Dover)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Faber, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Fabricant, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Forman, Nigel
Spink, Dr Robert


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Spring, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Gallic Phil
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gillan, Cheryl
Steen, Anthony


Gorst, John
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sweeney, Walter


Hague, William
Sykes, John


Hargreaves, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Harris, David
Thomason, Roy


Hawkins, Nick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hawksley, Warren
Thurnham, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Tracey, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Walden, George


Hunter, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Jack, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John


Jessel, Toby
Widdecombe, Ann


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Willetts, David


Key, Robert
Wilshire, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)



Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Mr. Andrew Mackay and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
`. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3—
Millennium Commission.—.[Mr. Brooke.]

Schedule 7

REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES

Amendments made: No. 175, in page 34, line 23, after `person' insert—
'who is or will be a person'.

No. 176, in page 34, line 36, leave out is'.

No. 177, in page 34, line 37, leave out 'if he' and insert 'is a person who'.

No. 76, in page 35, line 22, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.

No. 77, in page 35, line 23, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.

No. 178, in page 36, line 19, leave out 'or'.

No. 179, in page 36, line 21, at end insert '; or
(g) that an act or omission of a person who is or will be a person connected with a lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted on behalf of the society was a cause—

(i) of the registration of another society being refused or revoked on the ground specified in paragraph (b) or (f) above or under sub-paragraph (3) below;
(ii) of the registration of a scheme being refused or revoked on a ground specified in paragraph 3(1)(e) or 4(2)(c) of Schedule 2 below; or
(iii) of a relevant lottery, in the promotion of which the person was involved, not being properly conducted.
() In considering whether sub-paragraph (2)(g) above applies, the Board shall disregard any act or omission that occurred more than five years previously.
() For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(g) above—

(a) a person connected with a lottery is a person who is or has been—

(i) involved in the promotion of the lottery; or
(ii) employed for reward in connection with the promotion of any other lottery on behalf of the same society; and
(b) "relevant lottery", in relation to a society and a person, means a lottery promoted—

(i) on behalf of another society that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board; or
(ii) under a scheme that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board.'.

No. 78, in page 37, line 37, leave out 'and' and insert `including'.

No. 79, in page 37, line 38, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.

No. 80, in page 38, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.

No. 81, in page 38, line 3, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.

No. 180, in page 38, line 14, after '£100,000' insert `and any of those lotteries is a lottery to which section 5(3B), (3C) or (3D) above applies'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Schedule 8

REGISTRATION OF SCHEMES: AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 2 TO THE 1976 ACT

Amendments made: No. 181, in page 39, line 30, after substituted " ' insert 'a person'.

No. 182, in page 39, line 39, at end insert '; or

(f) except where the Secretary of State otherwise directs, it appears to the Board that an act or omission of a person who will be a person connected with a lottery under the scheme was a cause—

(i) of the registration of another scheme being refused or revoked on a ground specified in paragraph (e) above or paragraph 4(2)(c) below;
(ii) of the registration of a society being refused or revoked on the ground specified in paragraph 3(2)(b) or (f) of Schedule 1A above or under paragraph 3(3) of that Schedule; or

(iii) of a relevant lottery, in the promotion of which that person was involved, not being properly conducted.'.

No. 183, in page 39, line 40, at end insert—
'"() In considering whether sub-paragraph (1)(f) above applies, the Board shall disregard any act or omission that occurred more than five years previously.'.

No. 184, in page 40, line 7, leave out first 'is'.

No. 185, in page 40, line 7, leave out 'if he is' and insert
'is a person who is or has been'.

No. 186, in page 40, line 10, at end insert '; and
() "relevant lottery", in relation to a scheme and a person, means a lottery promoted—

(i) under another scheme that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board; or
(ii) on behalf of a society that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board.'.

No. 187, in page 40, line 18, leave out 'or has been' and insert 'a person'.

No. 188, in page 40, line 19, leave out '; or'.

No. 189, in page 40, line 22, at end insert '; or
(d) if it appears to them that an act or omission of a person who is or will be a person connected with a lottery under the scheme was a cause—

(i) of the registration of another scheme being refused or revoked on a ground specified in paragraph 3(1)(e) or paragraph (c) above;
(ii) of the registration of a society being refused or revoked on the ground specified in paragraph 3(2)(b) or (f) of Schedule 1A above or under paragraph 3(3) of that Schedule; or
(iii) of a relevant lottery, in the promotion of which that person was involved, not being properly conducted.
(3) In considering whether sub-paragraph (2)(d) above applies, the Board shall disregard any act or omission that occurred more than five years previously.'.

No. 82, in page 41, line 15, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.

No. 83, in page 41, line 16, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.

No. 84, in page 41, line 30, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.

No. 85, in page 41, line 31, leave out 'documentary form' and insert `writing'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Schedule 9

SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE 1976 ACT AFTER SCHEDULE 2

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 45, line 3, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.

No. 87, in page 45, line 4, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.

No. 88, in page 45, line 18, leave out 'and' and insert `including'.

No. 89, in page 45, line 19, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.

No. 190, in page 46, leave out lines 39 to 42.

No. 191, in page 47, line 2, leave out from '18(1)' to 'at' in line 4.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 192, Title, line 6, after 'to', insert 'private lotteries and'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a late hour, but there are courtesies to be observed, however briefly. The Bill has been the subject of much interest, both inside and outside the House. It has been subject to a thorough scrutiny by the Standing Committee and by the House tonight, and it has emerged from the Committee and from this evening's debate a better 13ill. I therefore pay tribute to all those who served in the Committee for their work on the Bill which, as has often been remarked, is almost unique in its combination of measures—establishing the lottery, making arrangements for the distribution of the net proceeds and taking the opportunity to help small lotteries.
It has fired the imagination and commanded, the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate all those involved and I think that we have a piece of legislation worthy of its task, one which I am sure will be looked at enviously by other lottery operators all over the world, and will produce a United Kingdom national lottery which is the best in the world.
In particular, I think that the whole House should be grateful for the sterling efforts of the chairman of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and to the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) who were called upon to step into the breach when the chairman was sadly taken ill early in the Committee's proceedings.
They formed an admirable triumvirate, supported by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Coote), who was ready to assist but never called. We owe them our thanks. The same appreciation goes to those who in the chair in the House have presided over the Report stage with such benign authority that controversy melted away.
We also owe thanks to the Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for their wise contributions in Committee, via probing amendments and through the fruits of their wide experience in the arts, sport and the heritage. They were joined tonight by the hon. Member for Cymn Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and throughout by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). They and all other members of the Committee were assisted by the excellent Clerk.
I also pay tribute to the skilful and tireless efforts of my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, whose diligence, constructiveness and good humour were greatly appreciated by the Committee. I also pay tribute to the massive work, done by our officials and advisers, which went on behind the scenes to sustain my hon. Friends.
1.30 am
I thank hon. Members who have helped to refine the Bill and speed it on, its way. At the risk of being quoted when the lottery becomes operative, I echo the dodo in "Alice": all have won and all shall have prizes. Through all its stages the Bill has been open to sensible amendment and hon. Members who participated have felt that the Bill has been further improved. It is not a lottery of excess; it is a lottery of access.
Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to Parliamentary Counsel for the superb elegance of the drafting of the Bill, which presented many difficult and unusual challenges that the Bill solves with creativity and aplomb. The Bill is a model of modern legislation, to be admired for the skill, grace and economy of its structure.
I could say a great deal about the substance of the Bill which would reinforce this categorical eulogy. I propose to resist that temptation and hope that my abstinence will cause others to join me in the good wishes that I have expressed for the Bill as it is poised to leave us now for another place. I commend in particular the work of the Whip in assisting our progress.

Mr. Pendry: I will not thank all those whom the Secretary of State thanked by name, but I echo much of what he said.
On Second Reading I said that it was consistent to be committed to the idea of a national lottery but to retain some deeply held objections to parts of it. We thought that the Bill was flawed in many fundamental respects and we urged the Committee to vote for our amendments and to reject the Bill as it stood.
We said that, unless the Bill emerged on Report in better shape, we reserved our position. Since the Committee stage, there has been some hard bargaining. Following persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friends and some free spirits on the Conservative Benches, Ministers did listen to the genuine concerns expressed. To their eternal credit, they promised to reflect on the many points that we had to put to them. That promise was kept.
Since then, there have been a number of meetings with Ministers and some important changes, to the benefit of the charitable sector, the pools industry, and the small lottery operators affiliated to the lotteries council. The House would, I am sure, want me to praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the president of the council, who has done so much to highlight the problems of the small lotteries and to bring about acceptable changes.
I had intended to make a number of points in the Government's favour, but I judge that Ministers do not want me to at this stage. I will therefore spare their blushes and content myself with pointing out that the Government have made some important concessions. The Bill is still not as perfect as we would like it to be. As it travels to another place I am sure that it will be further improved.
The pools companies, for instance, would like more freedom to advertise on television and radio. In Committee the Minister said that he would consider that, but nothing has been translated into legislative form. We hope that the Secretary of State will fight his corner with the Treasury, because the 12 per cent. tax yield to the Treasury is far too high. I hope that at the end of the first year of operation that percentage will go down and not up.
I trust that the Bill will be improved in the other place because we wish to see a better lottery. The Opposition have always said that decisions on the Bill should be taken by a free vote. People who have fundamental objections to a lottery of any kind should be allowed to express them in the Lobby. However, if there is a Division, we on this Bench, who fought hard to improve the Bill, will vote for Third Reading. We recognise the strength of feeling of those who feel that they still cannot support the Bill and,


as they know, they are free to vote against it. I wish the Bill well as it goes to the other place. I hope that it leaves there an even better Bill than it is now.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I was taken by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who said that we have a free vote. I like to think that Opposition Members are a little more democratic than Conservative Members.
I listened carefully to most of the debate, although not all of it, and four points convinced me that I should still vote against Third Reading. I have argued consistently against the Bill within my party, in Committee and on Second Reading. My opposition goes back about 16 months to the time of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). What I have heard today does not dissuade me one iota from my view. Conservative Members will be pleased to know that I shall be brief.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and there was an exchange about "this great heritage" of Georgian and Victorian England and about the achievements brought about by lotteries and charities at that time. I remind the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that after the Napoleonic wars there was a long and involved debate which in 1823 led to the abolition of the lotteries that existed at that time. He will know that the last lottery was held in 1826 because it was felt that lotteries were not in the interests of the people of this land. The Bill breaks a 300-year-old tradition of not seeking to expand and encourage gambling in this country.
My second point is of special interest to the people of Merseyside because of the Bill's effect on the pools, but it also affects the many groups that lobbied Opposition and Government Members during the progress of the Bill. It is the vexed question of additionality. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), was honest in his reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he said that he could give no guarantee about what any future Secretary of State or Government would do.
Experience in countries that have introduced lotteries shows that the principle of additionality goes out the window. As I said in Committee, whatever party the appropriate Secretary of State or Chancellor of the Exchequer belongs to, as sure as night follows day the principle of additionality will disappear and the lottery proceeds will be used as substitute finances, to the detriment of many of the good causes that are supposed to benefit from the Bill.
The Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage was also honest enough during the debate on, I think, new clause 4 about the siting of the national lottery headquarters to say that a guarantee could not be given on jobs. I accept that in the sense in which the Minister intended it. Jobs are of paramount importance to people who represent constituencies such as mine and those of other Merseyside Members of Parliament. We have hammered the point throughout the debate, and the Minister knows that we are sincere. In my part of the

world, 4,630 jobs are at risk. I shall not go over the arguments again, but he knows how committed we are to protecting those jobs, and the livelihoods of the people concerned.
It would be naive in the extreme to believe that the tax take will remain at 12 per cent. What has happened in other countries shows that it is an unrealistic tax regime. I noted carefully what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, although this may not be the appropriate Bill on which to have a debate on the matter. However, it is germane to what the Bill is about. The Chancellor emphasised that the take would be 12 per cent. in the first year. If it came to the crunch and he has to decide between putting VAT on children's clothes and shoes, or raising the tax take out of the national lottery, there would be no contest. The tax regime on the lottery would go up, and that would have a detrimental effect on the charities and other good causes that expect to make money out of this ill-thought-out, ill-conceived proposal.
For those genuine reasons, which are shared by a number of Opposition Members, and notwithstanding the fine efforts of those on the Front Bench to amend the Bill —they have improved it in many ways—we, in conscience, have to vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Maclennan: I must freely admit that no amendments to the Bill would have satisfied me that it merited a Third Reading. Although I acknowledge the work done in Committee, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossly Hill (Mr. Alton), and by the Opposition spokesman and many others to improve the Bill, and slightly to ameliorate the directly adverse effect that it will have on charitable organisations, it remains unacceptable.
This is the first time in modern times that the state has deliberately taken it upon itself to promote gambling. I regard gambling as a social evil, and one that will no doubt lead to an increase in crime, particularly among the young. It is not being a spoilsport to deplore that tendency. The Bill is a regressive measure that will hit hardest the least well-off. In a society where the gap between rich and poor is growing wider, the Government are doing more, deliberately, in the Bill to accentuate it. I find it morally repugnant, and I have no hesitation in saying so. I cannot, in the course of the Third Reading debate, confine myself to courtesies, although no doubt they are due.
I deeply regret that Parliament has descended to the depths of the Bill. Many have clutched at it, knowing that the Treasury was to tighten the noose on expenditure on arts and the sports, a process that has already begun, alas, under a Secretary of State for whom I had high hopes—[Laughter.] I believe that the Secretary of State has the interests of both sports and the arts very much at heart, but he did not devise the Bill. It was dreamed up by others.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was the first of several Arts Ministers who clutched at the rather vain hope that, for this declining nation, over which the Conservative Government have presided for 12 years, and this economy, which has failed to sustain the arts and sports in any other way, gambling would be the way out. The concept was promoted by a private Member's Bill, and in moving his own amendments tonight, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), in a very belated conversion, found occasion to draw attention to


some of the dangers—[Laughter.] He must bear some of the blame when the consequences of the Bill are felt by charities.
The principle was supported by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley as some kind of bread and circuses to be thrown before the electorate at the general election.

Mr. Cryer: He was the author of the poll tax as well.

Mr. Maclennan: And now he has sunk without trace. Those who embraced his policies may find that they will follow a similar route.
This has been a regrettable episode. Many people who have clutched at the hope of salvation for the arts will live to rue the day, as they see the Treasury using the lottery as an excuse for cutting expenditure raised by taxation on the arts and sport. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill.

Mr. George Howarth: As the Bill was extensively debated on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report tonight, I shall not detain the House long. I have two main points—one is a form of concession, and the other is an objection to the Bill receiving a Third Reading.
As a result of amendments made in Committee and others telegraphed, if not passed, tonight, the Bill is better than it was, and to that extent I congratulate those of my hon. Friends involved on the success of their arguments, and the Government on having the generosity of spirit to accept them.
However, a number of serious questions have not been answered, and for that reason I find it impossible to vote in favour of a Third Reading.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made a serious point—which was greeted with some hilarity by Conservative Members for some reason that escapes me—about genuine moral objections to state-sponsored gambling. Whatever gloss the Government put on the lottery, there are many well-considered arguments against state-sponsored gambling and a form of taxation—for it is that—that is regressive.
I and many of my hon. Friends are old-fashioned enough to think that the whole point of taxation is to redistribute wealth from one section of the community to another. The Bill will take from certain artistic and cultural events that are less well-off and give to the better-off. In due course, that inevitable consequence will be proved by the way in which the lottery, and the events that it sponsors, work out.
As the Government are unlikely to accept that argument, I will make other points concerning my constituents on Merseyside. At the beginning, I and many of my hon. Friends took the view that any development that would mean more job losses for a region already ravaged by recession and unemployment was unacceptable. It was estimated—this figure has not been disproved by any empirical evidence produced by Ministers or Conservative Members—that job losses across the country were likely to number 5,000 to 6,000 with 4,000 of them on Merseyside. Some of the amendments to the Bill—the levelling, to some extent, of the playing field—mean that job losses are likely to amount now to only 1,300 to 1,500, but those job losses are unacceptable to me and my hon. Friends.
For those two reasons—the moral objections, which still have not been answered, and the job losses that will inevitably result from the passing of the Bill on to the statute book—I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending my hon. Friends and any Conservative Members who feel so inclined to vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Alton: Before we proceed to a Division, I intend to put on record my objections to Third Reading. At every other stage I have voted against the Bill, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) have already given. Any hon. Member who represents pools workers will have no choice but to consider these reasons before deciding how to vote on Third Reading. There are serious job implications. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) knows that when he introduced his private Member's Bill, many of us put forward similar arguments. They still remain.
I am particularly grateful to the Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), who has been present throughout most of the proceedings on the Bill, for trying to meet many of the industry's concerns. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and others from the Department of National Heritage, who recognise that there are implications for pools workers. None the less, there remain concerns within the industry that once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, Zetters in London, Vernons in Liverpool and part of the Littlewoods operation will have to make people redundant. That will cause great hardship in areas where there is already high unemployment.
For the past 21 years I have represented many people —first as a councillor and then as a Member of Parliament for the past 14 years—who are employed by Littlewoods in Edge Lane, an inner city area of Liverpool. I am familiar with many of the families who rely upon the wages that they receive from that work for their livelihood.[Interruption.]
Although it is true that some of those jobs will undoubtedly disappear—the point which I think the hon. and learned Member for Burton is making from a sedentary position—because of the technology that is being introduced, I think he will be the first to agree that the number of jobs that will be involved in the creation of the national lottery, wherever its headquarters is situated, will be tiny, compared with the high level of labour-intensive work that is available through the football pools at present.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: indicated dissent.

Mr. Alton: We should not gamble with people's jobs and livelihoods, particularly at a time of very high unemployment.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I support him entirely. Does he also agree that the majority of the workers who will be affected are women and that in many cases these women are the sole earner in the family, on account of the high level of male unemployment on Merseyside? Those families depend upon the woman going out to work; many of them are lone parents.

Mr. Alton: Indeed. I specifically made that point earlier today in the debate on where the national lottery headquarters should be situated. If any area can prove —as I believe Merseyside will be able to prove—that it has lost jobs as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national lottery, we should ensure that its national headquarters is situated in that area, so that some of the women to whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred will have the possibility of finding employment there.
My second objection is the moral argument about regressive taxation. Is it right that people, who inevitably come from the poorest sections of society, should be encouraged to gamble through the state lottery and thereby subsidise to the greatest extent many of our great national institutions? There is nothing wrong with the Royal Opera House and Covent Garden, but why should people who are the least likely to use those facilities and who come from the poorest sections of society be the ones who most disproportionately will have to pay for those facilities?
Can it be right for the House actively to encourage more state-inspired gambling? More per head is spent on gambling in this country—about £4·50—than in any other country in Europe. Do we want to encourage more gambling and more of a chance society, in which people are encouraged to think that the only way out of poverty and the only way to succeed is by wagering a stake? Surely there are better ways of helping to succeed.
I conclude by recalling the words of William Wilberforce to his friend Henry Thornton in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery. He turned to Henry Thornton and asked, "What shall we abolish next?" The reply was, "The national lottery, I think." In those days, the period to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, the national lottery was so full of corruption, abuses and the fear of syndicates, which has also been expressed today, that there was a national crusade to abolish it. I hope that there will not have to be a national crusade to undo what we are doing today.

Mr. Renton: I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has expressed so well. I shall be brief because it is late, but I must say that I think that he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) are wrong. The national lottery will be a great step forward and will do much for good causes in this country.
During my time as Minister for the Arts, I used all my influence to get the notion approved. I was delighted that it was in our election manifesto, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), and the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage on the way that they have argued for the concept today.
There were two good reasons why I was convinced about the idea. The first was that, when talking to other Ministers for the Arts—they are usually called Ministers of Culture in other parts of Europe—I was always struck by their telling me that they had been able to use the proceeds of their national lotteries so successfully. I remember Maire Geoghegan-Quinn in Dublin telling me of the refurbishment and restoration of the Irish national gallery, which was the result of the national lottery. I asked Mrs.

Psarouda-Benaki, the Greek Minister of Culture, how she was doing for money. That was the usual question between Ministers for the Arts or for Culture. She said that she was saved by the national lottery.
Secondly, although my predecessor, Sir Richard Luce, and I were successful in getting increased grants from the Treasury for the current expenses of arts organisations, it was clear that there was not sufficient money available to build great buildings or for restoration and refurbishment. It was obvious to me that the large sums needed would come only from a national lottery. I believe that the national lottery will be a great success and that the concerns expressed are not valid.
I hope that when Oflot comes into being, and when the organisation that is to run the lottery has been chosen, they will concentrate on using small shops such as tobacconists' shops and sub-post offices as retail outlets. If anyone visits Wexford in Ireland, they will find three small shops in the high street, all displaying the lotto sign. That brings new customers into corner shops, and we all want to encourage the small shop rather than the supermarket. The lottery could be helpful in that respect.
I was disappointed by the gloomy view that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) took of the millennium fund. It is a most exciting and imaginative project, which will contribute to the construction of great buildings by which the next generation will remember us.
After the great exhibition, spare money was used to buy the land in south Kensington on which now stand the Victoria and Albert museum, the natural history museum and the science museum.
Over the next six or seven years we can do something comparable, and I believe that it will be for that that the next generation will remember us. We should all be proud to be associated with the project, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will carry it forward with great vigour and determination.

2 am

Mr. Frank Field: Although I respect the hon. Members who have taken a principled stand about the idea of the state organising gambling, I have to say that I do not care a stuff for that argument. I believe that in the country as a whole most people will fail to draw any significant distinction between gambling run privately and gambling run by the state. People may be able to make the case that they oppose all gambling, but it is a subsidiary matter whether the state or private organisations run it. Therefore, I have no wish to make more of that issue.
First, I thank the Secretary of State and his junior Minister for the changes that they have made to the Bill. I understand that the pools lobby is now much more satisfied with it. If the pools lobby consisted of Vernons alone I should be content with its response, for I have respected for some time Vernons' stance on the whole issue. However, Littlewoods' attitude over the long term has left everything to be desired in terms of how the company should have responded so as to shape the debate that culminates tonight.
I shall spend two minutes on the subject of jobs. We have had two good monthly returns for the unemployment figures, but two good months do not make an economic boom. Even if they did, we know from the past four or so booms that at the high point of each boom there are more


people unemployed than there were at the equivalent stage of the previous cycle. Therefore, the issue of jobs is of immense importance.
Like many Merseyside Members, I represent a constituency in which one in four people are unemployed. Generally there are two reactions to unemployment in my constituency. One is for people to drive themselves demented as they search for that elusive job, and for their loved ones to watch them become demented and to go mad with them, believing that round the next corner, on the next card that they read in the jobcentre or in the next newspaper advert that they read, there will be the sign of a job, and they will be successful.
The other response, which I find even more alarming, and which is becoming more common, is that the only way in which people can survive with that level of unemployment is to wipe the idea of paid work out of their lives. That is the only way to organise and to keep sane. That is an extremely worrying long-term trend for the House to have to debate.
It is therefore immensely serious that at a time of near record post-war unemployment we are debating a Bill that will deny some of my constituents work. Some of those people will be bringing the only wage packet into their households and without those jobs they will join either the group of demented constituents who search vainly for work, or that growing group that can survive only by pretending that working is not an important part of our activities as responsible adults.
I therefore make a plea to the House. While we have that level of unemployment and while that curse is laid on so many of our constituents, although in other circumstances a national lottery would be welcome, and there can be no real worry about the fact that the state rather than private individuals is organising it, the effect on unemployment is a sticking point, so I hope that the House will refuse the Bill a Third Reading.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The House will be aware that I have a strong moral conviction concerning the subject matter of the Bill; I have expressed it in the House before. I have been in pastoral work for 46 years, and the description by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of the frustration of the unemployed is very real to me. It is far more real to me that the unemployed, in that state of frustration, turn to gambling and think that by the cast of the dice they will remedy their position. It is deplorable that the Government and Parliament now take it on themselves to lead the nation in the gambling menace. It is a menace to society. It is sad that the only way in which the Government can preserve our heritage is by inviting people to gamble. That is not the way to preserve the heritage.
I sympathise with hon. Members whose constituencies have a high percentage of unemployment, as we have in Northern Ireland. The jobs lost will not be found easily, as all hon. Members know. That is bound to cause concern to anyone who has a heart and who feels for the unemployed. Nothing devastates a family more than unemployment, and nothing devastates the moral life of people more than unemployment. Despite all the hilarity in parts of our debate, we are not going down a road that will help the nation. That is my personal conviction, so I must say that.

Mr. Cryer: There are a number of objections to the Bill. Although there have been some improvements, they will not provide the safeguards needed by the small lotteries. Ironically, the legislation that allowed small lotteries was introduced by Graham Page, the former Member for Crosby. I do not suppose that he envisaged that the idea would be taken up and converted into a national scheme by a future Conservative Government.
The Bill is intrusive and it will affect many reasonably well-established lotteries which are used for a variety of purposes. I received representations from Bradford Northern rugby league football club, which plays at Odsal stadium in my constituency. Its concerns are not satisfied. The national lottery will have an adverse affect.
The lottery will not be terribly efficient. Barely 25 per cent. of the revenue will got to the so-called "good causes". Some 50 per cent. will go on prizes, 12 per cent. will go on tax because the Government will use the revenue from the lottery for their own purposes, and 13 per cent. or more will go on administration. That leaves barely 25 per cent. —minority—of the total revenue to go to the good causes. The lottery is not a very effective way in which to raise money.
Some 20 per cent. will go on the dotty scheme on the millennium which will not have any clear benefit to the nation except that in the year 2000 there will be some junketing which is not clearly defined. A quango will set up the scheme and spend the money on it. There are better uses for the money. The reservation that I and many of my hon. Friends have is that the revenue will not supplement Government expenditure, but will supplant it. It will be used as a source of revenue to pay for things that could and should come from general taxation. That is the real fear.
There is also good and genuine tradition—Methodist, puritanical or whatever—among Labour Members. We have gambling because footbal pools are a form of gambling. That far and no further should we go. We should not expand it into a national lottery running alongside the football pools which would expand a society that is concerned with consumerism, with status and with a way out through the easy pickings of prizes in a national lottery. They are not easy pickings. Everybody contributes to the prizes. The vast majority will be losers. A tiny proportion will be winners, and the rest will be left with dashed hopes, illusions and the cynicism of a decrepit and corrupt society. Goods and services are out of reach for the vast majority because they have low incomes or no jobs in a society that has an economy that cannot provide for them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Close the stock exchange.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend talks about the stock exchange. That represents another form of gambling to which I am opposed. I do not see why we should expand gambling to consume the whole nation, with the posh gamblers in the City of London and the ordinary gamblers consumed in the pursuit of false hope. It is not by gambling but by organising together to secure a political victory and to elect a Government with the right priorities that we shall change and improve society. For those reasons, I shall vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Davidson: I oppose the Bill for many of the reasons that have already been given. I disagree with the assertion that it makes no difference whatever if gambling is organised by the state or by private individuals. If the state is seen not only to be condoning gambling by allowing it but actually to be promoting it, a different message is conveyed about the type of society that we want to see.
Ultimately, the money from the national lottery will be used not in addition to but instead of money spent by local authorities or the state. That money will be raised from those who can afford it least to be spent on those who can afford it most. I can imagine unemployed people living in damp houses in my constituency paying money in desperation towards a national lottery in an attempt to escape from their predicament, only to see their money spent on pleasures that are predominantly enjoyed by those who are much better off than they are.
The Bill is a redistributive measure: it will redistribute wealth away from those who have least and in the direction of those who have most. That is why I do not believe that it is morally just or morally sustainable, and I do not propose to vote for it.
I recognise that a great deal of work has been done by those on both Front Benches to make this a less bad Bill than it was, and I pay tribute to them for that work, but I still believe that charitable giving will suffer as a result of the lottery.
The Government have assured us that that will not happen. What do they propose to do if, several months or a year down the road, it is clearly shown that charities are suffering as a result of the introduction of the national lottery, and that local voluntary effort is being diminished as a result of money being bled away from that sector and into the lottery, which will be offering larger prizes? Will they be prepared to accept that something needs to be done to redress the balance?
What will the Government do if it becomes clear that the national lottery cash is being used as substitute for money from elsewhere rather than being additional to it? No doubt the assurances that we have heard have been given in good faith, but it would be much more reassuring to us to have a clear commitment from the Government that they would be prepared to redress any imbalance that developed.
I am worried that the lottery will result in the exploitation of misery by those who wish to reduce taxation and are looking for ways of funding what should be public works. The arts and sports lobbies are clutching at the national lottery in desperation because they see no other source of public revenue. In my view, that is the explanation for their enthusiasm.
On the question of jobs, I echo the anxieties and fears expressed by many of my hon. Friends. As I said earlier, in many families in my constituency, the woman working for Littlewoods pools is the sole breadwinner and she will have no alternative opportunity for employment if she loses her job. That has not been adequately dealt with in the proposals before us. For all those reasons—moral as well as economic—I find myself with no alternative but to oppose the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 39.

Division No. 253]
[2.15 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Key, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Amess, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Ancram, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Arbuthnot, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ashby, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Legg, Barry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Baldry, Tony
Lidington, David


Bates, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lord, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Luff, Peter


Boswell, Tim
MacKay, Andrew


Brandreth, Gyles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Maitland, Lady Olga


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malone, Gerald


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Merchant, Piers


Butler, Peter
Milligan, Stephen


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Carrington, Matthew
Nelson, Anthony


Clappison, James
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clitton-Brown, Geoffrey
Patnick, Irvine


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pendry, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Congdon, David
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Richards, Rod


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Robathan, Andrew


Cran, James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Dover, Den
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Duncan, Alan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Spencer, Sir Derek


Durant, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Elletson, Harold
Spink, Dr Robert


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Spring, Richard


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Sproat, Iain


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Faber, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fabricant, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Streeter, Gary


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Sweeney, Walter


Freeman, Roger
Sykes, John


Gallie, Phil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gill, Christopher
Thomason, Roy


Gillan, Cheryl
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gorst, John
Thurnham, Peter


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Hague, William
Tracey, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Harris, David
Viggers, Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Walden, George


Hawksley, Warren
Waller, Gary


Heald, Oliver
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Whittingdale, John


Hendry, Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Willetts, David


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wilshire, David


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Wood, Timothy


Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Jessel, Toby



Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hall, Mike


Dalyell, Tam
Hinchliffe, David






Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Wallace, James


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Maclennan, Robert



McMaster, Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Miller, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Youth Training (Norwich)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The timing and date of an Adjournment debate is certainly a lottery, but even at this early hour of 25 minutes past two in the morning, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of youth training in Norwich, to refer to the difficulties that must be faced, and to make positive suggestions about how to tackle them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment for being present on the Front Bench at this late hour. I look forward to his response to the debate tonight. I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I am grateful to them for their support. In my last Adjournment debate I forgot to welcome the Whip. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is here to listen to the debate.
It is clear that there are problems in youth training. There certainly have been problems in Norwich, although considerable strides have been made in recent years. I wish to place on record my thanks to Sarah Prettejohn of the university of East Anglia for the research that she has done, on which I was able to draw in preparation for the debate. I am also grateful to many trainees, firms and other organisations in Norwich who have provided a wealth of information which has been helpful for the debate.
I believe that too little is known locally and nationally about the positive work of the Department of Employment, the training and enterprise councils and the careers service in tackling youth employment and meeting young people's training needs. Too little value is still placed on technical and vocational training. Employers and young people often have limited understanding of the importance and relevance of national vocational qualifications. You will have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I spelt that out in full. I have become fed up during my 10 years as a Member of Parliament of everything being referred to in acronyms such as NVQ. It is right that we should spell out what we mean: national vocational qualification. It is important that we press for a better understanding of such qualifications.
Some of our young people are difficult to motivate, partly because of the failure of many of our schools to produce completely literate and numerate youngsters and partly because the training that they are offered is not of high quality. Employers cannot expect to attract and retain high-quality staff unless they contribute more. Higher quality training costs money. Our record in training is still not comparable to that of many other advanced countries. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those issues in his reply.
A major publicity drive to raise public awareness of our training programmes and vocational qualifications should be mounted as a matter of urgency or at least as soon as practicably possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to that point. Such a publicity drive would help to change attitudes and make sure that opportunities were not missed.
I should like to be assured by my hon. Friend the Minister that closer links will be forged with the careers service and schools and that earlier and better advice will be given to children well before they reach school-leaving age. The time for education-business compacts has arrived. As a member of the Education Select Committee before the last general election, I visited Germany. It was clear that there was a stronger link than in Britain between industry and the schools. We have a long way to go.
If, as is likely, some schools in Norwich opt for grant-maintained status, links between education and business can be further encouraged. The Confederation of British Industry has recently suggested that the best way of reducing the false distinction between academic and vocational qualifications would be to integrate them within one overall system. I am not sure that that is the right approach. It is important that national vocational qualifications and vocational training generally should have better recognition.
It is not clear whether everyone should gain national vocational qualifications, as some of the training and enterprise councils appear to believe. It is important that quality in training should not be sacrificed in the search for universal qualifications. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that we must secure the higher quality training, with greater employer commitment, which will enable us to compete effectively with our foreign rivals in the decades ahead.
Almost 10 years ago, in my maiden speech in the House, I praised the Government's youth training initiatives. I have kept my interest in the youth training scheme and in matters concerned with education and training ever since. I have visited many training providers in Norwich. Even this week, I had discussions with the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council. At one time I was also involved with Norwich engineering project, which was founded to increase young people's interest in engineering and related skills in my constituency.
The research that Sarah Prettejohn and I have conducted in the past weeks in Norwich has shown up clearly some of the problems under which the present system operates. In recent months, the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council has been subject to some criticism and a lack of co-ordination with the careers service has been evident.
Although training generally has held up during the recession, the nature and structure of the local economy, which has few large national companies based in the city, has imposed constraints on the opportunities available. The recent decision by Norwich Union to stop taking on school leavers had an immediate impact throughout the area. Matching potential trainees to suitable places became more difficult if youngsters were expected to travel long distances across, or out of, the city.
Employers have, quite naturally, been uncertain about their ability to offer places to young people under the youth training programme because of its two-year life span. If a company is making its adult employees redundant and cannot judge what its markets will be like in three months' time, its reluctance to take on 16 or 17-year-olds is understandable. It has been all too easy to cut training budgets and to fail to offer financial incentives

and wider differentials to acquire training qualifications. All that has been left has been seen by youngsters as training in quantity rather than in quality for the future.
It has been said, too, that there has been a problem with the attitude of a small number of youngsters seeking training. One Norwich company told us that its trainees left a lot to be desired. It said that those young people did not understand the need to be at work on time and lacked the motivation to get the most out of their training. The company regarded that as the fault of the schools, which had tolerated those attitudes and downgraded vocational skills. I am sorry to say that there is more than a degree of truth in those charges.
It is not entirely clear how many young people have been training locally, which is due to a difference in the criteria used by the careers service and the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council. The careers service has considered that its figures might be an underestimate while the training and enterprise council thought that they were probably an overestimate and included those who had gone back to school or college. In the training and enterprise council's view, those who did go back for an extra year found it more difficult to get training places once they left school.
An extremely important development has been the creation by the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council of foundation training specifically designed to help youngsters who had experienced problems in finding a training place. By offering preparatory counselling on suitable careers, by involving youngsters directly in training to improve motivation, social and interview skills and by helping them to appreciate the importance of team work, that programme is offering those youngsters the chance to achieve their objectives rather than to fall and to fail at the first hurdle. Training providers will be able to recruit motivated people who want to gain national vocational qualifications and pursue a career with realistic prospects.
We have found that the results of the training and enterprise council's efforts are already beginning to show through. Eight month's ago, there were 1,408 youngsters eligible for youth training, of whom 353 had waited for a start date for more than eight weeks. This month, there were 692 eligible youngsters, with only 11 who had waited more than eight weeks; some of them had either just moved into the area or were long-term sick. I suspect that the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the training and enterprise council has had a salutary effect to improve the situation. I welcome the recent improvement, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm the figures that I have quoted.
Every young person seeking youth training at the beginning of January has now been offered a place, and everyone accepting the offer has actually started on his or her course or placement with an employer. Overall, some 4,200 young men and women are undertaking training under the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council's auspices. I also understand that the careers service and the training and enterprise council are now working more closely together to tackle the employment and training needs of young people, and will go on doing so.
So progress is being made in Norwich. It must be consolidated, locally and nationally. As the economy recovers, employers, particularly in the manufacturing and


engineering sectors, will need encouragement to take on trainees and to meet the additional costs of training in their skills. This point has been discussed constructively between representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation and the training and enterprise council. More apprentices will be sponsored this year in spite of a reduced employers' contribution. Better links with teachers are being built. Similarly, a major publicity drive is under way to attract young people into engineering, as the engineering stand at the recent Job Scene East careers exhibition at the Norwich sports village showed.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the recovery in the economy will be abortive if we suffer a skills shortage. I can recall some years ago being called to meetings by employers in Norwich because they were desperately worried about a skills shortage. We have heard less of that recently as the economy has gone through a more difficult period, but I suspect that it will not be long before we start hearing about a skills shortage again. That is why I am emphasising the point now.
I am particularly grateful to have had this opportunity to raise the subject of youth training in Norwich. It is a matter of great importance to young people in Norwich and throughout the country, including young people in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who have supported me tonight, the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. We must get the right sort of training for our young people who are leaving education and entering the world of work for the first time. It is in their interests and in ours that they acquire skills that will be useful for the rest of their lives.
I believe that these objectives are accepted inside and outside the House, even if there are differing views on how to achieve them. I believe, therefore, that a campaign to stimulate interest in training and enthusiasm for vacational qualifications will have widespread support, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and their colleagues will be able to take a lead in this. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond positively to the points that I have discovered in my research on youth training in Norwich and to the suggestions that I have made in opening this debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for raising this important topic tonight. I know how strongly he feels about the need to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to enter a quality youth training place. I share his concern. I particularly pay tribute to the way in which he has championed and fought for the rights of young people in his constituency. Let me, therefore, first of all make it clear just how important youth training is to the Government.
Our record on providing training for young people shows what progress we have made in the past 10 years. There were only 7,000 young people in Great Britain on training programmes under the last Labour Government in 1979. The numbers now entering youth training and training credits exceed 200,000 each year. This is an outstanding performance at a time when our economy has been under considerable pressure.
Before this Government came to power there was no such thing as today's youth training. Very few people then understood how important it was to provide well-structured routes for all young people, helping them with the transition between schooldays and working life. Thanks to this Government, the picture is now vastly different.
My hon. Friend has stressed both the need to raise the profile and status of vocational qualifications and employers' commitment to training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear her intention to have a promotional drive to underline the importance of employers meeting the Investors in People standard and the importance of national vocational qualifications for business and individuals alike. My hon. Friend's point about the need to promote NVQs more vigorously is not lost on the Secretary of State.
The Department has been holding detailed consultations with TECs, industrial training organisations, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and others on how best to deliver such a campaign. My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement shortly.
We have made available £844 million this year to fund youth training. This is despite the continued reduction in the number of young people joining the labour market immediately after school leaving age—partly because more stay on and partly due to the falling number nationally in the age group. I repeat, as I have so often in the past, that the Government remain fully committed to the youth training guarantee and that no training and enterprise council will be prevented by lack of resources from meeting it.
Through the training and enterprise councils, we have given leadership in delivering training programmes to key players in the local business community. This approach has tapped in to the commitment and ideas that people on the spot have to offer and means that local programmes are tailored to the needs of the local community and overseen by business-led bodies: the TEC boards. To allow TEC boards to exercise their business acumen, we make it their responsibility to contract with local providers to secure the training which the Gvoernment fund.
On the Government side, the contracts are managed by the Employment Department's regional offices. It is the responsibility of the regional office to liaise with the TEC, to monitor performance and try to resolve any emerging local difficulties. This, of course, includes any difficulty the TEC may have in meeting the YT guarantee in a particular area.
TECs work with the careers service locally to ensure that the contracted provision fits the needs of all school leavers wanting to go into youth training, and that no young person misses out on the opportunities available.
My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of links between the careers service and schools. I am pleased to say that the Employment Department has undertaken a number of initiatives in this area, such as careers libraries to enhance the quality of careers information available in schools; the teacher placement scheme; and education-business partnerships. These are designed to bring schools, TECs and careers services closer together, improve the links between schools and the world of work, and put young people's career choices on a much firmer basis.
In addition, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently in another place, proposes major changes for the careers


service. It will be the duty of the Secretaries of State for Employment, for Wales and for Scotland to ensure that careers advice is provided to the statutory client group who are at or have recently left schools and colleges. This is a fundamental change which reflects the importance that the Government attach to good careers guidance.
I would now like to turn to my hon. Friend's constituency. Youth training in Norwich is delivered under contract with Norfolk and Waveney TEC, which also serves the Secretary of State's constituency. It contracts with 12 providers making youth training places available to young people in Norwich. These include organisations such as Norfolk county council, the training workshop and Broadland district council.
I would like to put on record some of the major achievements of Norfolk and Waveney TEC in helping young people. Since its creation in November 1990, many young people have benefited from the youth training courses that it has run. We must not forget that at a time when, nationally, number, in this age group are in marked decline, East Anglia is unusual in that the reduction there is much smaller than in other regions. The numbers of entrants into the TEC's youth training courses in 1991–92 was 3,776; in 1992–93 it was 3,636. These figures put into better context some of the numbers that critics have bandied about—of young people without suitable offers of a youth training place.
Much concern has been expressed about the YT guarantee. As I have explained, we regard this as of crucial importance, and all TECs, working with careers services, are in no doubt about the priority that the Government attach to it. That said, if there are continuing difficulties in Norwich, they need to be addressed by the processes that I have outlined.
We have said throughout that no TEC would be prevented by lack of resources from implementing the guarantee. We have agreed a budget with Norfolk and Waveney TEC, earmarked for youth training, of more than £10 million for 1993–94. These negotiations have only just been completed, and while we have been negotiating with the TEC, it has been negotiating with its many providers. Inevitably, while negotiations are in train and different positions are being argued, there will be temptations to overdramatise how harshly a new pricing framework will bear on one or other of the parties to the negotiations.
I accept that Norfolk has faced far greater difficulties this year than previously in dealing with the demand for youth training. There has been local media comment on the number of young people still seeking places and a gathering recognition that something more is needed to be done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to discuss the issues with Mr. John Lineker, the TEC chairman, and his chief executive, Mr. John Wooddissee, on 25 January.
Following this, the TEC, in discussion with senior officials from my Department, was able to formulate an action plan which committed the TEC to ensuring that all eligible young people were offered a place and started

training by early March. As a direct result, the number of young people awaiting the offer of a suitable YT place for more than eight weeks has plummeted. In the TEC's area, in November, 375 young people, on the careers service count, had been waiting for over eight weeks. I am happy to say that the comparative figure for the April count is only 31. Within the Norwich careers service area, the equivalent figures show a fall from 82 to just four.
I emphasise the success of youth training. Some 3·5 million young people have been trained since its predecessor, the youth training scheme, was introduced in 1983. There are currently some 250,000 in training, including youth credits, in Great Britain: 76 per cent. of those who complete their planned training go into jobs or further training or education; and 53 per cent. of those who complete their planned training gain a qualification. All young people under 18 who are not in full-time education or employment are guaranteed the offer of a suitable training place.
That is the picture for the whole of Great Britain. Youth training is just as important for Norwich as it is for the country as a whole. Youth training is a success story built on the success of YTS, but it is more flexible and with a stronger focus on qualifications. The normal minimum attainment level built into training plans is NVQ level 2. Youth training is now the accepted route into work in many occupational areas, a part of the infrastructure of working life.
Not least, youth training, alongside the national curriculum and other new education innovations introduced by the Government, is one of the key routes by which we will raise standards and meet the national education and training targets.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the particular issues that concern him about Norfolk and Waveney TEC's approach to securing the right provision in Norwich. I have explained how our contractual relationship works and the onus that my Department places on TECs to ensure delivery.
We shall continue to monitor the situation very closely to ensure that the TEC continues to address the need to provide for Norwich's young people quality training opportunities and that it discharges its responsibilities for meeting the YT guarantee. In like fashion, the Department will continue to press upon the careers service the need to work co-operatively with the TEC to diagnose the needs of the city's young people in good time to allow the right provision to be brought on stream, and after that to ensure that each young person leaving school in Norwich is helped to find the right opportunity.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which has given me the opportunity to place on record the great importance that the Government attach to the youth training guarantee. The debate has also enabled me to underline our message to training and enterprise councils throughout the country and not just in Norfolk and Waveney. It is vital for the youth training guarantee to be met.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.